Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Journal of Epidemiology 1/2013

01-01-2013 | METHODS

Assessing improvement in disease prediction using net reclassification improvement: impact of risk cut-offs and number of risk categories

Authors: Kristin Mühlenbruch, Alexandros Heraclides, Ewout W. Steyerberg, Hans-Georg Joost, Heiner Boeing, Matthias B. Schulze

Published in: European Journal of Epidemiology | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Net reclassification improvement (NRI) has received much attention for comparing risk prediction models, and might be preferable over the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve to indicate changes in predictive ability. We investigated the influence of the choice of risk cut-offs and number of risk categories on the NRI. Using data of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Potsdam study, three diabetes prediction models were compared according to ROC area and NRI with varying cut-offs for two and three risk categories and varying numbers of risk categories. When compared with a basic model, including age, anthropometry, and hypertension status, a model extension by waist circumference improved discrimination from 0.720 to 0.831 (0.111 [0.097–0.125]) while increase in ROC-AUC from 0.831 to 0.836 (0.006 [0.002–0.009]) indicated moderate improvement when additionally considering diet and physical activity. However, NRI based on these two model comparisons varied with varying cut-offs for two (range: 5.59–23.20 %; −0.79 to 4.09 %) and three risk categories (20.37–40.15 %; 1.22–4.34 %). This variation was more pronounced in the model extension showing a larger difference in ROC-AUC. NRI increased with increasing numbers of categories from minimum NRIs of 18.41 and 0.46 % to approximately category-free NRIs of 79.61 and 19.22 %, but not monotonically. There was a similar pattern for this increase in both model comparisons. In conclusion, the choice of risk cut-offs and number of categories has a substantial impact on NRI. A limited number of categories should only be used if categories have strong clinical importance.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Buijsse B, et al. Risk assessment tools for identifying individuals at risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Epidemiol Rev. 2011;33(1):46–62.PubMedCrossRef Buijsse B, et al. Risk assessment tools for identifying individuals at risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Epidemiol Rev. 2011;33(1):46–62.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Wilson PW, et al. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation. 1998;97(18):1837–47.PubMedCrossRef Wilson PW, et al. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation. 1998;97(18):1837–47.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Assmann G, Cullen P, Schulte H. Simple scoring scheme for calculating the risk of acute coronary events based on the 10-year follow-up of the prospective cardiovascular Munster (PROCAM) study. Circulation. 2002;105(3):310–5.PubMedCrossRef Assmann G, Cullen P, Schulte H. Simple scoring scheme for calculating the risk of acute coronary events based on the 10-year follow-up of the prospective cardiovascular Munster (PROCAM) study. Circulation. 2002;105(3):310–5.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Conroy RM, et al. Estimation of ten-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in Europe: the SCORE project. Eur Heart J. 2003;24(11):987–1003.PubMedCrossRef Conroy RM, et al. Estimation of ten-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in Europe: the SCORE project. Eur Heart J. 2003;24(11):987–1003.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Hippisley-Cox J, et al. Derivation and validation of QRISK, a new cardiovascular disease risk score for the United Kingdom: prospective open cohort study. BMJ. 2007;335(7611):136.PubMedCrossRef Hippisley-Cox J, et al. Derivation and validation of QRISK, a new cardiovascular disease risk score for the United Kingdom: prospective open cohort study. BMJ. 2007;335(7611):136.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Pepe MS, et al. Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(9):882–90.PubMedCrossRef Pepe MS, et al. Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(9):882–90.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Cook NR, Ridker PM. Advances in measuring the effect of individual predictors of cardiovascular risk: the role of reclassification measures. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(11):795–802.PubMed Cook NR, Ridker PM. Advances in measuring the effect of individual predictors of cardiovascular risk: the role of reclassification measures. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(11):795–802.PubMed
8.
go back to reference Pencina MJ, et al. 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. (discussion 207–212).PubMedCrossRef Pencina MJ, et al. 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. (discussion 207–212).PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB Sr, Steyerberg EW. Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers. Stat Med. 2011;30(1):11–21.PubMedCrossRef Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB Sr, Steyerberg EW. Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers. Stat Med. 2011;30(1):11–21.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Tzoulaki I, Liberopoulos G, Ioannidis JP. Use of reclassification for assessment of improved prediction: an empirical evaluation. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40(4):1094–105.PubMedCrossRef Tzoulaki I, Liberopoulos G, Ioannidis JP. Use of reclassification for assessment of improved prediction: an empirical evaluation. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40(4):1094–105.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Mihaescu R, et al. Improvement of risk prediction by genomic profiling: reclassification measures versus the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(3):353–61.PubMedCrossRef Mihaescu R, et al. Improvement of risk prediction by genomic profiling: reclassification measures versus the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(3):353–61.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Cook NR, Paynter NP. Performance of reclassification statistics in comparing risk prediction models. Biometric J. 2011;53(2):237–58.CrossRef Cook NR, Paynter NP. Performance of reclassification statistics in comparing risk prediction models. Biometric J. 2011;53(2):237–58.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Boeing H, Korfmann A, Bergmann MM. Recruitment procedures of EPIC-Germany. European Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Ann Nutr Metab. 1999;43(4):205–15.PubMedCrossRef Boeing H, Korfmann A, Bergmann MM. Recruitment procedures of EPIC-Germany. European Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Ann Nutr Metab. 1999;43(4):205–15.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Schulze MB, et al. An accurate risk score based on anthropometric, dietary, and lifestyle factors to predict the development of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(3):510–5.PubMedCrossRef Schulze MB, et al. An accurate risk score based on anthropometric, dietary, and lifestyle factors to predict the development of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(3):510–5.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837–45.PubMedCrossRef DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837–45.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Demler OV, Pencina MJ, D’Agostino Sr. RB. Misuse of DeLong test to compare AUCs for nested models. Stat Med. 2012;31(23):2577–87. Demler OV, Pencina MJ, D’Agostino Sr. RB. Misuse of DeLong test to compare AUCs for nested models. Stat Med. 2012;31(23):2577–87.
17.
go back to reference Chambless LE, Cummiskey CP, Cui G. Several methods to assess improvement in risk prediction models: extension to survival analysis. Stat Med. 2011;30(1):22–38.PubMedCrossRef Chambless LE, Cummiskey CP, Cui G. Several methods to assess improvement in risk prediction models: extension to survival analysis. Stat Med. 2011;30(1):22–38.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Sundstrom J, et al. Useful tests of usefulness of new risk factors: tools for assessing reclassification and discrimination. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39(4):439–41.PubMedCrossRef Sundstrom J, et al. Useful tests of usefulness of new risk factors: tools for assessing reclassification and discrimination. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39(4):439–41.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Steyerberg EW, Van Calster B, Pencina MJ. Performance measures for prediction models and markers: evaluation of predictions and classifications. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2011;64(9):788–94.PubMedCrossRef Steyerberg EW, Van Calster B, Pencina MJ. Performance measures for prediction models and markers: evaluation of predictions and classifications. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2011;64(9):788–94.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Mealiffe ME, et al. Assessment of clinical validity of a breast cancer risk model combining genetic and clinical information. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(21):1618–27.PubMedCrossRef Mealiffe ME, et al. Assessment of clinical validity of a breast cancer risk model combining genetic and clinical information. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(21):1618–27.PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Steyerberg EW, et al. Assessing the incremental value of diagnostic and prognostic markers: a review and illustration. Eur J Clin Invest. 2011;42(2):216–28. Steyerberg EW, et al. Assessing the incremental value of diagnostic and prognostic markers: a review and illustration. Eur J Clin Invest. 2011;42(2):216–28.
22.
go back to reference Cook NR, Paynter NP. Comments on ‘extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers’ by M. J. Pencina, R. B. D’Agostino, Sr. and E. W. Steyerberg. Stat Med. 2012;31(1):93–5. (author reply 96–97).PubMedCrossRef Cook NR, Paynter NP. Comments on ‘extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers’ by M. J. Pencina, R. B. D’Agostino, Sr. and E. W. Steyerberg. Stat Med. 2012;31(1):93–5. (author reply 96–97).PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP). Expert panel on detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults (adult treatment panel III) final report. Circulation. 2002;106(25):3143–421. Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP). Expert panel on detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults (adult treatment panel III) final report. Circulation. 2002;106(25):3143–421.
24.
go back to reference Grundy SM, et al. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation. 2004;110(2):227–39.PubMedCrossRef Grundy SM, et al. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation. 2004;110(2):227–39.PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB Sr, Demler OV. Novel metrics for evaluating improvement in discrimination: net reclassification and integrated discrimination improvement for normal variables and nested models. Stat Med. 2012;31(2):101–13.PubMedCrossRef Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB Sr, Demler OV. Novel metrics for evaluating improvement in discrimination: net reclassification and integrated discrimination improvement for normal variables and nested models. Stat Med. 2012;31(2):101–13.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Reilly BM, Evans AT. Translating clinical research into clinical practice: impact of using prediction rules to make decisions. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(3):201–9.PubMed Reilly BM, Evans AT. Translating clinical research into clinical practice: impact of using prediction rules to make decisions. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(3):201–9.PubMed
27.
go back to reference Steyerberg EW, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology. 2010;21(1):128–38.PubMedCrossRef Steyerberg EW, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology. 2010;21(1):128–38.PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(6):565–74.PubMedCrossRef Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(6):565–74.PubMedCrossRef
29.
30.
go back to reference Pencina MJ. Response to ‘Net reclassification improvement and decision theory’ by Vickers et al. Stat Med. 2009;28(3):526–8.CrossRef Pencina MJ. Response to ‘Net reclassification improvement and decision theory’ by Vickers et al. Stat Med. 2009;28(3):526–8.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Greenland P (2008) Comments on ‘evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond’ by M. J. Pencina, R. B. D’Agostino Sr., R. B. D’Agostino Jr., R. S. Vasan, Statistics in Medicine. Stat Med. 2008; 27(2): 188–190. doi:10.1002/sim.2929 Greenland P (2008) Comments on ‘evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond’ by M. J. Pencina, R. B. D’Agostino Sr., R. B. D’Agostino Jr., R. S. Vasan, Statistics in Medicine. Stat Med. 2008; 27(2): 188–190. doi:10.​1002/​sim.​2929
Metadata
Title
Assessing improvement in disease prediction using net reclassification improvement: impact of risk cut-offs and number of risk categories
Authors
Kristin Mühlenbruch
Alexandros Heraclides
Ewout W. Steyerberg
Hans-Georg Joost
Heiner Boeing
Matthias B. Schulze
Publication date
01-01-2013
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
European Journal of Epidemiology / Issue 1/2013
Print ISSN: 0393-2990
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7284
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-012-9744-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

European Journal of Epidemiology 1/2013 Go to the issue