Net Reclassification Index and Integrated Discrimination Index Are Not Appropriate for Testing Whether a Biomarker Improves Predictive Performance

Net Reclassification Index and Integrated Discrimination Index Are Not Appropriate for Testing... One of the goals of the Critical Path Institute’s Predictive Safety Testing Consortium (PSTC) is to promote best practices for evaluating novel markers of drug induced injury. This includes the use of sound statistical methods. For rat studies, these practices have centered around comparing the area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve for each novel injury biomarker to those for the standard markers. In addition, the PSTC has previously used the net reclassification index (NRI) and integrated discrimination index (IDI) to assess the increased certainty provided by each novel injury biomarker when added to the information already provided by the standard markers. Due to their relatively simple interpretations, NRI and IDI have generally been popular measures of predictive performance. However recent literature suggests that significance tests for NRI and IDI can have inflated false positive rates and thus, tests based on these metrics should not be relied upon. Instead, when parametric models are employed to assess the added predictive value of a new marker, following (Pepe, M. S., Kerr, K. F., Longton, G., and Wang, Z. (2013). Testing for improvement in prediction model performance. Stat. Med. 32, 1467–1482), the PSTC recommends that likelihood based methods be used for significance testing. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Toxicological Sciences Oxford University Press

Net Reclassification Index and Integrated Discrimination Index Are Not Appropriate for Testing Whether a Biomarker Improves Predictive Performance

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/net-reclassification-index-and-integrated-discrimination-index-are-not-e6iBlPM3vR
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Toxicology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
ISSN
1096-6080
eISSN
1096-0929
D.O.I.
10.1093/toxsci/kfw225
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

One of the goals of the Critical Path Institute’s Predictive Safety Testing Consortium (PSTC) is to promote best practices for evaluating novel markers of drug induced injury. This includes the use of sound statistical methods. For rat studies, these practices have centered around comparing the area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve for each novel injury biomarker to those for the standard markers. In addition, the PSTC has previously used the net reclassification index (NRI) and integrated discrimination index (IDI) to assess the increased certainty provided by each novel injury biomarker when added to the information already provided by the standard markers. Due to their relatively simple interpretations, NRI and IDI have generally been popular measures of predictive performance. However recent literature suggests that significance tests for NRI and IDI can have inflated false positive rates and thus, tests based on these metrics should not be relied upon. Instead, when parametric models are employed to assess the added predictive value of a new marker, following (Pepe, M. S., Kerr, K. F., Longton, G., and Wang, Z. (2013). Testing for improvement in prediction model performance. Stat. Med. 32, 1467–1482), the PSTC recommends that likelihood based methods be used for significance testing.

Journal

Toxicological SciencesOxford University Press

Published: Mar 1, 2017

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off