» Articles » PMID: 19036144

Extensions to Decision Curve Analysis, a Novel Method for Evaluating Diagnostic Tests, Prediction Models and Molecular Markers

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2008 Nov 28
PMID 19036144
Citations 691
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Decision curve analysis is a novel method for evaluating diagnostic tests, prediction models and molecular markers. It combines the mathematical simplicity of accuracy measures, such as sensitivity and specificity, with the clinical applicability of decision analytic approaches. Most critically, decision curve analysis can be applied directly to a data set, and does not require the sort of external data on costs, benefits and preferences typically required by traditional decision analytic techniques.

Methods: In this paper we present several extensions to decision curve analysis including correction for overfit, confidence intervals, application to censored data (including competing risk) and calculation of decision curves directly from predicted probabilities. All of these extensions are based on straightforward methods that have previously been described in the literature for application to analogous statistical techniques.

Results: Simulation studies showed that repeated 10-fold crossvalidation provided the best method for correcting a decision curve for overfit. The method for applying decision curves to censored data had little bias and coverage was excellent; for competing risk, decision curves were appropriately affected by the incidence of the competing risk and the association between the competing risk and the predictor of interest. Calculation of decision curves directly from predicted probabilities led to a smoothing of the decision curve.

Conclusion: Decision curve analysis can be easily extended to many of the applications common to performance measures for prediction models. Software to implement decision curve analysis is provided.

Citing Articles

Refining precision prognostics in multiple myeloma: loss of miR-221/222 cluster in CD138+ plasma cells results in short-term progression and worse treatment outcome.

Soureas K, Malandrakis P, Papadimitriou M, Minopoulos C, Ntanasis-Stathopoulos I, Liacos C Blood Cancer J. 2025; 15(1):41.

PMID: 40089465 DOI: 10.1038/s41408-025-01248-2.


Development of Clinical-Radiomics Nomogram for Predicting Post-Surgery Functional Improvement in High-Grade Glioma Patients.

Ius T, Polano M, Dal Bo M, Bagatto D, Bertani V, Gentilini D Cancers (Basel). 2025; 17(5).

PMID: 40075605 PMC: 11899258. DOI: 10.3390/cancers17050758.


The impact of postoperative recurrent postoperative ileus on the prognosis of colorectal cancer: a propensity score matched study.

Xie R, Qiu C, Lai R, Que Z, Lin S, Xu D Updates Surg. 2025; .

PMID: 40057926 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-025-02142-z.


Risk-adapted scoring model to identify candidates benefiting from adjuvant chemotherapy after radical nephroureterectomy for localized upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: A multicenter study.

Sou S, Ku J, Kim K, Seo W, Ha H, Gu H Investig Clin Urol. 2025; 66(2):114-123.

PMID: 40047124 PMC: 11885917. DOI: 10.4111/icu.20240323.


Transferrin Saturation Can Serve as a Novel Biomarker for Predicting the Occurrence and Development of BK Virus-Related Nephropathy After Kidney Transplantation.

Yan Y, Wang Z, Feng Y, Qiu Y, Qi Y, Cheng F J Med Virol. 2025; 97(3):e70213.

PMID: 40022475 PMC: 11871415. DOI: 10.1002/jmv.70213.


References
1.
Pauker S, Kassirer J . The threshold approach to clinical decision making. N Engl J Med. 1980; 302(20):1109-17. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198005153022003. View

2.
Bochner B, Kattan M, Vora K . Postoperative nomogram predicting risk of recurrence after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24(24):3967-72. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.3884. View

3.
Vickers A, Elkin E . Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making. 2006; 26(6):565-74. PMC: 2577036. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06295361. View

4.
Claxton K . The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 1999; 18(3):341-64. DOI: 10.1016/s0167-6296(98)00039-3. View

5.
Altman D, Royston P . What do we mean by validating a prognostic model?. Stat Med. 2000; 19(4):453-73. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(20000229)19:4<453::aid-sim350>3.0.co;2-5. View