Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

Improving prediction models with new markers: a comparison of updating strategies

Authors: D. Nieboer, Y. Vergouwe, Danna P. Ankerst, Monique J. Roobol, Ewout W. Steyerberg

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

New markers hold the promise of improving risk prediction for individual patients. We aimed to compare the performance of different strategies to extend a previously developed prediction model with a new marker.

Methods

Our motivating example was the extension of a risk calculator for prostate cancer with a new marker that was available in a relatively small dataset. Performance of the strategies was also investigated in simulations. Development, marker and test sets with different sample sizes originating from the same underlying population were generated. A prediction model was fitted using logistic regression in the development set, extended using the marker set and validated in the test set. Extension strategies considered were re-estimating individual regression coefficients, updating of predictions using conditional likelihood ratios (LR) and imputation of marker values in the development set and subsequently fitting a model in the combined development and marker sets. Sample sizes considered for the development and marker set were 500 and 100, 500 and 500, and 100 and 500 patients. Discriminative ability of the extended models was quantified using the concordance statistic (c-statistic) and calibration was quantified using the calibration slope.

Results

All strategies led to extended models with increased discrimination (c-statistic increase from 0.75 to 0.80 in test sets). Strategies estimating a large number of parameters (re-estimation of all coefficients and updating using conditional LR) led to overfitting (calibration slope below 1). Parsimonious methods, limiting the number of coefficients to be re-estimated, or applying shrinkage after model revision, limited the amount of overfitting. Combining the development and marker set using imputation of missing marker values approach led to consistently good performing models in all scenarios. Similar results were observed in the motivating example.

Conclusion

When the sample with the new marker information is small, parsimonious methods are required to prevent overfitting of a new prediction model. Combining all data with imputation of missing marker values is an attractive option, even if a relatively large marker data set is available.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
go back to reference Riley RD, Hayden JA, Steyerberg EW, Moons KGM, Abrams K, Kyzas PA, Malats N, Briggs A, Schroter S, Altman DG, et al. Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 2: Prognostic Factor Research. PLoS Med. 2013;10(2):e1001380.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Riley RD, Hayden JA, Steyerberg EW, Moons KGM, Abrams K, Kyzas PA, Malats N, Briggs A, Schroter S, Altman DG, et al. Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 2: Prognostic Factor Research. PLoS Med. 2013;10(2):e1001380.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Steyerberg EW, Moons KGM, Van der Windt DA, Hayden JA, Perel P, Schroter S, Riley RD, Hemingway H, Altman DG, for the PG. Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: Prognostic Model Research. PLoS Med. 2013;10(2):e1001381.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Steyerberg EW, Moons KGM, Van der Windt DA, Hayden JA, Perel P, Schroter S, Riley RD, Hemingway H, Altman DG, for the PG. Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: Prognostic Model Research. PLoS Med. 2013;10(2):e1001381.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Brundage MD, Davies D, Mackillop WJ. Prognostic factors in non-small cell lung cancer*: A decade of progress. CHEST J. 2002;122(3):1037–57.CrossRef Brundage MD, Davies D, Mackillop WJ. Prognostic factors in non-small cell lung cancer*: A decade of progress. CHEST J. 2002;122(3):1037–57.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Steyerberg EW. Clinical Prediction Models: A Practical Approach to Development, Validation, and Updating. New York: Springer-Verlag New York; 2009.CrossRef Steyerberg EW. Clinical Prediction Models: A Practical Approach to Development, Validation, and Updating. New York: Springer-Verlag New York; 2009.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Van Houwelingen JC, Le Cessie S. Predictive value of statistical models. Stat Med. 1990;9(11):1303–25.CrossRefPubMed Van Houwelingen JC, Le Cessie S. Predictive value of statistical models. Stat Med. 1990;9(11):1303–25.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Harrell FE. Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis. New York: Springer; 2001.CrossRef Harrell FE. Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis. New York: Springer; 2001.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Steyerberg EW, Borsboom GJJM, Van Houwelingen HC, Eijkemans MJC, Habbema JDF. Validation and updating of predictive logistic regression models: a study on sample size and shrinkage. Stat Med. 2004;23(16):2567–86.CrossRefPubMed Steyerberg EW, Borsboom GJJM, Van Houwelingen HC, Eijkemans MJC, Habbema JDF. Validation and updating of predictive logistic regression models: a study on sample size and shrinkage. Stat Med. 2004;23(16):2567–86.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Ankerst DP, Koniarski T, Liang Y, Leach RJ, Feng Z, Sanda MG, Partin AW, Chan DW, Kagan J, Sokoll L, et al. Updating risk prediction tools: a case study in prostate cancer. Biom J. 2012;54(1):127–42.CrossRefPubMed Ankerst DP, Koniarski T, Liang Y, Leach RJ, Feng Z, Sanda MG, Partin AW, Chan DW, Kagan J, Sokoll L, et al. Updating risk prediction tools: a case study in prostate cancer. Biom J. 2012;54(1):127–42.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Kranse R, Roobol M, Schröder FH. A graphical device to represent the outcomes of a logistic regression analysis. Prostate. 2008;68(15):1674–80.CrossRefPubMed Kranse R, Roobol M, Schröder FH. A graphical device to represent the outcomes of a logistic regression analysis. Prostate. 2008;68(15):1674–80.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, Kattan MW, van der Kwast TH, De Koning HJ, Schröder FH. Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram. J Urol. 2007;177(1):107–12. discussion 112.CrossRefPubMed Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, Kattan MW, van der Kwast TH, De Koning HJ, Schröder FH. Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram. J Urol. 2007;177(1):107–12. discussion 112.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Roobol MJ, Van Vugt HA, Loeb S, Zhu X, Bul M, Bangma CH, Van Leenders AGLJH, Steyerberg EW, Schröder FH. Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators. Eur Urol. 2012;61(3):577–83.CrossRefPubMed Roobol MJ, Van Vugt HA, Loeb S, Zhu X, Bul M, Bangma CH, Van Leenders AGLJH, Steyerberg EW, Schröder FH. Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators. Eur Urol. 2012;61(3):577–83.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Sanda MG, Wei JT, Klee GG, Bangma CH, Slawin KM, Marks LS, Loeb S, Broyles DL, et al. A multicenter study of [−2] pro-prostate specific antigen combined with prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0 to 10.0 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range. J Urol. 2011;185(5):1650–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Sanda MG, Wei JT, Klee GG, Bangma CH, Slawin KM, Marks LS, Loeb S, Broyles DL, et al. A multicenter study of [−2] pro-prostate specific antigen combined with prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0 to 10.0 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range. J Urol. 2011;185(5):1650–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Lughezzani G, Lazzeri M, Haese A, McNicholas T, de la Taille A, Buffi NM, Fossati N, Lista G, Larcher A, Abrate A, et al. Multicenter European External Validation of a Prostate Health Index–based Nomogram for Predicting Prostate Cancer at Extended Biopsy. Eur Urol. 2014;66(5):906–12.CrossRefPubMed Lughezzani G, Lazzeri M, Haese A, McNicholas T, de la Taille A, Buffi NM, Fossati N, Lista G, Larcher A, Abrate A, et al. Multicenter European External Validation of a Prostate Health Index–based Nomogram for Predicting Prostate Cancer at Extended Biopsy. Eur Urol. 2014;66(5):906–12.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Van Houwelingen HC. Validation, calibration, revision and combination of prognostic survival models. Stat Med. 2000;19(24):3401–15.CrossRefPubMed Van Houwelingen HC. Validation, calibration, revision and combination of prognostic survival models. Stat Med. 2000;19(24):3401–15.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Van Buuren S. Flexible Imputation of Missing Data. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis; 2012.CrossRef Van Buuren S. Flexible Imputation of Missing Data. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis; 2012.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: Wiley; 1987.CrossRef Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: Wiley; 1987.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Harrell FE, Califf RM, Pryor DB, Lee KL, Rosati RA. Evaluating the Yield of Medical Tests. JAMA. 1982;247(18):2543–6.CrossRefPubMed Harrell FE, Califf RM, Pryor DB, Lee KL, Rosati RA. Evaluating the Yield of Medical Tests. JAMA. 1982;247(18):2543–6.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Team RC. In: Team RC, editor. R; A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013. Team RC. In: Team RC, editor. R; A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013.
20.
go back to reference Van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45(3):1–67. Van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45(3):1–67.
21.
go back to reference Burton A, Altman DG, Royston P, Holder RL. The design of simulation studies in medical statistics. Stat Med. 2006;25(24):4279–92.CrossRefPubMed Burton A, Altman DG, Royston P, Holder RL. The design of simulation studies in medical statistics. Stat Med. 2006;25(24):4279–92.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Debray TPA, Vergouwe Y, Koffijberg H, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Moons KGM. A new framework to enhance the interpretation of external validation studies of clinical prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(3):279–89.CrossRefPubMed Debray TPA, Vergouwe Y, Koffijberg H, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Moons KGM. A new framework to enhance the interpretation of external validation studies of clinical prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(3):279–89.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Pencina MJ, D’ Agostino RB, Vasan RS. Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: From area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med. 2008;27(2):157–72.CrossRefPubMed Pencina MJ, D’ Agostino RB, Vasan RS. Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: From area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med. 2008;27(2):157–72.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision Curve Analysis: A Novel Method for Evaluating Prediction Models. Med Decis Mak. 2006;26(6):565–74.CrossRef Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision Curve Analysis: A Novel Method for Evaluating Prediction Models. Med Decis Mak. 2006;26(6):565–74.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Hilden J, Gerds TA. A note on the evaluation of novel biomarkers: do not rely on integrated discrimination improvement and net reclassification index. Stat Med. 2014;33(19):3405–14.CrossRefPubMed Hilden J, Gerds TA. A note on the evaluation of novel biomarkers: do not rely on integrated discrimination improvement and net reclassification index. Stat Med. 2014;33(19):3405–14.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Leening MJG, Steyerberg EW, Van Calster B, D’Agostino RB, Pencina MJ. Net reclassification improvement and integrated discrimination improvement require calibrated models: relevance from a marker and model perspective. Stat Med. 2014;33(19):3415–8.CrossRefPubMed Leening MJG, Steyerberg EW, Van Calster B, D’Agostino RB, Pencina MJ. Net reclassification improvement and integrated discrimination improvement require calibrated models: relevance from a marker and model perspective. Stat Med. 2014;33(19):3415–8.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Improving prediction models with new markers: a comparison of updating strategies
Authors
D. Nieboer
Y. Vergouwe
Danna P. Ankerst
Monique J. Roobol
Ewout W. Steyerberg
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0231-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2016 Go to the issue