Effects of categorizing continuous variables in decision-analytic models
Abstract
Purpose When using continuous predictor variables in discrete-state Markov modeling, it is necessary to create categories of risk and assume homogeneous disease risk within categories, which may bias model outcomes. This analysis assessed the tradeoffs between model bias and complexity and/or data limitations when categorizing continuous risk factors in Markov models. Methods The authors developed a generic Markov cohort model of disease, defining bias as the percentage change in life expectancy gain from a hypothetical intervention when using 2 to 15 risk factor categories as compared with modeling the risk factor as a continuous variable. They evaluated the magnitude and sign of bias as a function of disease incidence, disease-specific mortality, and relative difference in risk among categories. Results Bias was positive in the base case, indicating that categorization overestimated life expectancy gains. The bias approached zero as the number of risk factor categories increased and did not exceed 4% for any parameter combinations or numbers of categories considered. For any given disease-specific mortality and disease incidence, bias increased with relative risk of disease. For any given relative risk, the relationship between bias and parameters such as disease-specific mortality or disease incidence was not always monotonic. Conclusions Under the assumption of a normally distributed risk factor and reasonable assumption regarding disease risk and moderate values for the…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In cohort STMs, continuous variables such as blood pressure have to be categorized, and some guidance exists for determining how many states to create.
“In cohort STMs, continuous variables (e.g., blood pressure) have to be categorized; some guidance exists for determining how many states to create [35].”
From State-Transition Modeling: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3 (2012) · cites this paper as [35]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
State-Transition Modeling: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3
Siebert, U., Alagoz, O., Bayoumi, A. M., Jahn, B., Owens, D. K., Cohen, D. J., & Kuntz, K. M. (2012) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.014 · Cited by 495 · see citing works
Self-citationState-Transition Modeling: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–3
Siebert, U., Alagoz, O., Bayoumi, A. M., Jahn, B., Owens, D. K., Cohen, D. J., & Kuntz, K. M. (2012) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x12455463 · Cited by 348 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Bentley, T. G. K., Weinstein, M. C., & Kuntz, K. M.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Venue
- Medical Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-07-13
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 549-556
- ISSN
- 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1552-681X
- OpenAlex
- W2137253321
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 3.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Medical Decision Making (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (U01 CA88204, U01CA088204)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Keywords
- model bias, life expectancy gains, relative risk, disease incidence, disease-specific mortality, model complexity
- MeSH terms
- Decision Support Techniques, Markov Chains, Models, Theoretical, Cohort Studies
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review