PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16320261

Evaluating technologies for classification and prediction in medicine.

Abstract

Modern technologies promise to provide new ways of diagnosing disease, detecting subclinical disease, predicting prognosis, selecting patient specific treatment, identifying subjects at risk for disease, and so forth. Advances in genomics, proteomics and imaging modalities in particular hold great potential for assisting with classification/prediction in medicine. Before a classifier can be adopted for routine use in health care, its classification accuracy must be determined. Standards for evaluating new clinical classifiers however, lag far behind the well established standards that exist for evaluating new clinical treatments. In this paper, we discuss a phased approach to developing a new classifier (or biomarker). It mirrors the internationally established phase 1-2-3 paradigm for therapeutic drugs. The defined phases lead to a logical sequence of studies for classifier development. We emphasize that evaluating classification accuracy is fundamentally different from simply establishing association with outcome. Therefore, study objectives and designs differ from the familiar methods of clinical trials. We discuss these briefly for each phase.Finally, we argue that classifier development requires some rethinking of traditional data analysis techniques. As an example we show that maximizing the likelihood function to fit a logistic regression model to multiple predictors, can yield a poor classifier. Instead we demonstrate that an approach that maximizes an alternative objective function characterizing classification accuracy performs better.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M S Pepe. 2005-12-30. Evaluating technologies for classification and prediction in medicine.. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2431

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Impact of adjustment for quality on results of metaanalyses of diagnostic accuracy.

BACKGROUND: We examined whether and to what extent different strategies of defining and incorporating quality of included studies affect the results of metaanalyses of diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: We evaluated the methodological quality of 487 diagnostic-accuracy studies in 30 systematic reviews with the QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic-Accuracy Studies) checklist. We applied 3 strategies that varied both in the definition of quality and in the statistical approach to incorporate the quality-assessment results into metaanalyses. We compared magnitudes of diagnostic odds ratios, widths of their confidence intervals, and changes in a hypothetical clinical decision between strategies. RESULTS: Following 2 definitions of quality, we concluded that only 70 or 72 of 487 studies were of "high quality". This small number was partly due to poor reporting of quality items. None of the strategies for accounting for differences in quality led systematically to accuracy estimates that were less optimistic than ignoring quality in metaanalyses. Limiting the review to high-quality studies considerably reduced the number of studies in all reviews, with wider confidence intervals as a result. In 18 reviews, the quality adjustment would have resulted in a different decision about the usefulness of the test. CONCLUSIONS: Although reporting the results of quality assessment of individual studies is necessary in systematic reviews, reader wariness is warranted regarding claims that differences in methodological quality have been accounted for. Obstacles for adjusting for quality in metaanalyses are poor reporting of design features and patient characteristics and the relatively low number of studies in most diagnostic reviews.

Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures↗