American Journal of Epidemiology Practice of Epidemiology Improvement of Risk Prediction by Genomic Profiling: Reclassification Measures versus the Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve

Reclassification is observed even when there is no or minimal improvement in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and it is unclear whether it indicates improved clinical utility. The authors investigated total reclassification, net reclassification improvement, and integrated discrimination improvement for different DeltaAUC using empirical and simulated data. Empirical analyses compared prediction of type 2 diabetes risk based on age, sex, and body mass index with prediction updated with 18 established genetic risk factors. Simulated data were used to investigate measures of reclassification against DeltaAUCs of 0.005, 0.05, and 0.10. Total reclassification and net reclassification improvement were calculated for all possible cutoff values. The AUC of type 2 diabetes risk prediction improved from 0.63 to 0.66 when 18 polymorphisms were added, whereas total reclassification ranged from 0% to 22.5% depending on the cutoff value chosen. In the simulation study, total reclassification, net reclassification improvement, and integrated discrimination improvement increased with higher DeltaAUC. When DeltaAUC was low (0.005), net reclassification improvement values were close to zero, integrated discrimination improvement was 0.08% (P > 0.05), but total reclassification ranged from 0 to 6.7%. Reclassification increases with increasing AUC but predominantly varies with the cutoff values chosen. Reclassification observed in the absence of AUC increase is unlikely to improve clinical utility.

[1]  Nancy R Cook,et al.  Advances in Measuring the Effect of Individual Predictors of Cardiovascular Risk: The Role of Reclassification Measures , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[2]  D. Levy,et al.  Development of a risk score for atrial fibrillation (Framingham Heart Study): a community-based cohort study , 2009, The Lancet.

[3]  Nancy R Cook,et al.  Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction With and Without Knowledge of Genetic Variation at Chromosome 9p21.3 , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[4]  R. D'Agostino,et al.  Genotype score in addition to common risk factors for prediction of type 2 diabetes. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  Peter Almgren,et al.  Clinical risk factors, DNA variants, and the development of type 2 diabetes. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  Holly Janes,et al.  Assessing the Value of Risk Predictions by Using Risk Stratification Tables , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[7]  A. Cecile J.W. Janssens,et al.  Predicting Type 2 Diabetes Based on Polymorphisms From Genome-Wide Association Studies , 2008, Diabetes.

[8]  J. Sundström,et al.  Use of multiple biomarkers to improve the prediction of death from cardiovascular causes , 2008 .

[9]  S. Sharp,et al.  Evaluation of the Framingham risk score in the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer-Norfolk cohort: does adding glycated hemoglobin improve the prediction of coronary heart disease events? , 2008, Archives of internal medicine.

[10]  S. Kathiresan,et al.  Polymorphisms Associated With Cholesterol and Risk of Cardiovascular Events , 2008 .

[11]  M. Pencina,et al.  Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: From area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  M S Pepe,et al.  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 et al., Statistics in Medicine (DOI: 10.1002/sim.2929) , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  J. Ware,et al.  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 et al., Statistics in Medicine (DOI: 10.1002/sim.2929) , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  C. Dina,et al.  Impact of Common Type 2 Diabetes Risk Polymorphisms in the DESIR Prospective Study , 2008, Diabetes.

[15]  Yingye Zheng,et al.  Integrating the predictiveness of a marker with its performance as a classifier. , 2007, American journal of epidemiology.

[16]  A. Hofman,et al.  The Rotterdam Study: objectives and design update , 2007, European Journal of Epidemiology.

[17]  J. Pankow,et al.  Prediction of coronary heart disease risk using a genetic risk score: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. , 2007, American journal of epidemiology.

[18]  N. Cook Use and Misuse of the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve in Risk Prediction , 2007, Circulation.

[19]  Ewout W Steyerberg,et al.  Predictive testing for complex diseases using multiple genes: Fact or fiction? , 2006, Genetics in Medicine.

[20]  P. Raskin,et al.  Report of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. , 1999, Diabetes care.

[21]  P. Zimmet,et al.  Definition, diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications. Part 1: diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Provisional report of a WHO Consultation , 1998, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[22]  Ross Ihaka,et al.  Gentleman R: R: A language for data analysis and graphics , 1996 .

[23]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[24]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.