Cited by 149Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareStatistical Methods and Inference

The index of prediction accuracy: an intuitive measure useful for evaluating risk prediction models

Open access
Kattan, Michael W., Gerds, Thomas A.·2018·Diagnostic and Prognostic Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many measures of prediction accuracy have been developed. However, the most popular ones in typical medical outcome prediction settings require additional investigation of calibration. METHODS: We show how rescaling the Brier score produces a measure that combines discrimination and calibration in one value and improves interpretability by adjusting for a benchmark model. We have called this measure the index of prediction accuracy (IPA). The IPA permits a common interpretation across binary, time to event, and competing risk outcomes. We illustrate this measure using example datasets. RESULTS: The IPA is simple to compute, and example code is provided. The values of the IPA appear very interpretable. CONCLUSIONS: IPA should be a prominent measure reported in studies of medical prediction model performance. However, IPA is only a measure of average performance and, by default, does not measure the utility of a medical decision.

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 · 10.1186/s41512-018-0029-2

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kattan, M. W., & Gerds, T. A.
Affiliations
  • Cleveland Clinic (US)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Kattan, Michael W.
Venue
Diagnostic and Prognostic Research
Published
2018-05-04
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
7-7
ISSN
2397-7523 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2805456907
Cited by
149
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
8.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diagnostic and Prognostic Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
Keywords
Brier score, calibration, discrimination (statistics), risk prediction model, binary outcomes, time-to-event outcomes, competing risks, model evaluation

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