Cited by 23Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Assessing the clinical impact of risk models for opting out of treatment

Open access
Kerr, Kathleen F., Brown, Marshall D., Marsh, Tracey L., Janes, Holly·2019·Medical Decision Making

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0272989x18819479

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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
Published
2019-01-16
Volume
39
Issue
2
Pages
86-90
ISSN
  • 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-681X
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
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