Assessing the clinical impact of risk models for opting out of treatment
Open accessAbstract
Decision curves are a tool for evaluating the population impact of using a risk model for deciding whether to undergo some intervention, which might be a treatment to help prevent an unwanted clinical event or invasive diagnostic testing such as biopsy. The common formulation of decision curves is based on an opt-in framework. That is, a risk model is evaluated based on the population impact of using the model to opt high-risk patients into treatment in a setting where the standard of care is not to treat. Opt-in decision curves display the population net benefit of the risk model in comparison to the reference policy of treating no patients. In some contexts, however, the standard of care in the absence of a risk model is to treat everyone, and the potential use of the risk model would be to opt low-risk patients out of treatment. Although opt-out settings were discussed in the original decision curve paper, opt-out decision curves are underused. We review the formulation of opt-out decision curves and discuss their advantages for interpretation and inference when treat-all is the standard.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The most used measure for clinical utility in prediction studies in health care is net benefit.
“The most used measure for clinical utility in prediction studies in health care is net benefit.”
From Evaluation of performance measures in predictive artificial intelligence models to support medical decisions: overview and guidance (2025) · cites this paper as [83]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 14 · Cited by 23
- Authors
- Kerr, K. F., Brown, M. D., Marsh, T. L., & Janes, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Fred Hutch Cancer Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kerr, Kathleen F.
- Venue
- Medical Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-01-16
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 86-90
- ISSN
- 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1552-681X
- PMC
- PMC6374190
- OpenAlex
- W2909807557
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 2.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Medical Decision Making (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (5R01HL085757-11)
- National Cancer Institute (R01CA152089)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- decision curves, risk model, clinical decision-making, biopsy avoidance, invasive diagnostic testing
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Decision-Making, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Decision Making, Decision Support Techniques, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Risk, Risk Management, Risk Assessment, Policy, Standard of Care
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