Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userClinical Prediction Models to Predict the Risk of Multiple Binary Outcomes: a comparison of approaches
103
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Glen Martin Dr
Publication date
2020
fields
Mathematical Statistics
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Clinical prediction models (CPMs) are used to predict clinically relevant outcomes or events. Typically, prognostic CPMs are derived to predict the risk of a single future outcome. However, with rising emphasis on the prediction of multi-morbidity, there is growing need for CPMs to simultaneously predict risks for each of multiple future outcomes. A common approach to multi-outcome risk prediction is to derive a CPM for each outcome separately, then multiply the predicted risks. This approach is only valid if the outcomes are conditionally independent given the covariates, and it fails to exploit the potential relationships between the outcomes. This paper outlines several approaches that could be used to develop prognostic CPMs for multiple outcomes. We consider four methods, ranging in complexity and assumed conditional independence assumptions: namely, probabilistic classifier chain, multinomial logistic regression, multivariate logistic regression, and a Bayesian probit model. These are compared with methods that rely on conditional independence: separate univariate CPMs and stacked regression. Employing a simulation study and real-world example via the MIMIC-III database, we illustrate that CPMs for joint risk prediction of multiple outcomes should only be derived using methods that model the residual correlation between outcomes. In such a situation, our results suggest that probabilistic classification chains, multinomial logistic regression or the Bayesian probit model are all appropriate choices. We call into question the development of CPMs for each outcome in isolation when multiple correlated or structurally related outcomes are of interest and recommend more holistic risk prediction.
rate research
Read More
Genomics are rapidly transforming medical practice and basic biomedical research, providing insights into disease mechanisms and improving therapeutic strategies, particularly in cancer. The ability to predict the future course of a patients disease from high-dimensional genomic profiling will be essential in realizing the promise of genomic medicine, but presents significant challenges for state-of-the-art survival analysis methods. In this abstract we present an investigation in learning genomic representations with neural networks to predict patient survival in cancer. We demonstrate the advantages of this approach over existing survival analysis methods using brain tumor data.
Background: In epidemiology, causal inference and prediction modeling methodologies have been historically distinct. Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) are used to model a priori causal assumptions and inform variable selection strategies for causal questions. Although tools originally designed for prediction are finding applications in causal inference, the counterpart has remained largely unexplored. The aim of this theoretical and simulation-based study is to assess the potential benefit of using DAGs in clinical risk prediction modeling. Methods and Findings: We explore how incorporating knowledge about the underlying causal structure can provide insights about the transportability of diagnostic clinical risk prediction models to different settings. A single-predictor model in the causal direction is likely to have better transportability than one in the anticausal direction. We further probe whether causal knowledge can be used to improve predictor selection. We empirically show that the Markov Blanket, the set of variables including the parents, children, and parents of the children of the outcome node in a DAG, is the optimal set of predictors for that outcome. Conclusions: Our findings challenge the generally accepted notion that a change in the distribution of the predictors does not affect diagnostic clinical risk prediction model calibration if the predictors are properly included in the model. Furthermore, using DAGs to identify Markov Blanket variables may be a useful, efficient strategy to select predictors in clinical risk prediction models if strong knowledge of the underlying causal structure exists or can be learned.
Evidence from animal models and epidemiological studies has linked prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) to a broad range of long-term cognitive and behavioral deficits. However, there is virtually no information in the scientific literature regarding the levels of PAE associated with an increased risk of clinically significant adverse effects. During the period from 1975-1993, several prospective longitudinal cohort studies were conducted in the U.S., in which maternal reports regarding alcohol use were obtained during pregnancy and the cognitive development of the offspring was assessed from early childhood through early adulthood. The sample sizes in these cohorts did not provide sufficient power to examine effects associated with different levels and patterns of PAE. To address this critical public health issue, we have developed a hierarchical meta-analysis to synthesize information regarding the effects of PAE on cognition, integrating data on multiple endpoints from six U.S. longitudinal cohort studies. Our approach involves estimating the dose-response coefficients for each endpoint and then pooling these correlated dose-response coefficients to obtain an estimated `global effect of exposure on cognition. In the first stage, we use individual participant data to derive estimates of the effects of PAE by fitting regression models that adjust for potential confounding variables using propensity scores. The correlation matrix characterizing the dependence between the endpoint-specific dose-response coefficients estimated within each cohort is then run, while accommodating incomplete information on some endpoints. We also compare and discuss inferences based on the proposed approach to inferences based on a full multivariate analysis
Risk evaluation to identify individuals who are at greater risk of cancer as a result of heritable pathogenic variants is a valuable component of individualized clinical management. Using principles of Mendelian genetics, Bayesian probability theory, and variant-specific knowledge, Mendelian models derive the probability of carrying a pathogenic variant and developing cancer in the future, based on family history. Existing Mendelian models are widely employed, but are generally limited to specific genes and syndromes. However, the upsurge of multi-gene panel germline testing has spurred the discovery of many new gene-cancer associations that are not presently accounted for in these models. We have developed PanelPRO, a flexible, efficient Mendelian risk prediction framework that can incorporate an arbitrary number of genes and cancers, overcoming the computational challenges that arise because of the increased model complexity. We implement an eleven-gene, eleven-cancer model, the largest Mendelian model created thus far, based on this framework. Using simulations and a clinical cohort with germline panel testing data, we evaluate model performance, validate the reverse-compatibility of our approach with existing Mendelian models, and illustrate its usage. Our implementation is freely available for research use in the PanelPRO R package.
The use of machine learning systems to support decision making in healthcare raises questions as to what extent these systems may introduce or exacerbate disparities in care for historically underrepresented and mistreated groups, due to biases implicitly embedded in observational data in electronic health records. To address this problem in the context of clinical risk prediction models, we develop an augmented counterfactual fairness criteria to extend the group fairness criteria of equalized odds to an individual level. We do so by requiring that the same prediction be made for a patient, and a counterfactual patient resulting from changing a sensitive attribute, if the factual and counterfactual outcomes do not differ. We investigate the extent to which the augmented counterfactual fairness criteria may be applied to develop fair models for prolonged inpatient length of stay and mortality with observational electronic health records data. As the fairness criteria is ill-defined without knowledge of the data generating process, we use a variational autoencoder to perform counterfactual inference in the context of an assumed causal graph. While our technique provides a means to trade off maintenance of fairness with reduction in predictive performance in the context of a learned generative model, further work is needed to assess the generality of this approach.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
