4.5 Article

Quantifying the impact of different approaches for handling continuous predictors on the performance of a prognostic model

Journal

STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 35, Issue 23, Pages 4124-4135

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/sim.6986

Keywords

prognostic modelling; continuous predictors; dichotomisation

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [G1100513]
  2. Medical Research Council Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) Partnership [G0902393/99558]
  3. MRC [G1100513] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Cancer Research UK [16895] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Medical Research Council [G1100513] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Continuous predictors are routinely encountered when developing a prognostic model. Investigators, who are often non-statisticians, must decide how to handle continuous predictors in their models. Categorising continuous measurements into two or more categories has been widely discredited, yet is still frequently done because of its simplicity, investigator ignorance of the potential impact and of suitable alternatives, or to facilitate model uptake. We examine three broad approaches for handling continuous predictors on the performance of a prognostic model, including various methods of categorising predictors, modelling a linear relationship between the predictor and outcome and modelling a nonlinear relationship using fractional polynomials or restricted cubic splines. We compare the performance (measured by the c-index, calibration and net benefit) of prognostic models built using each approach, evaluating them using separate data from that used to build them. We show that categorising continuous predictors produces models with poor predictive performance and poor clinical usefulness. Categorising continuous predictors is unnecessary, biologically implausible and inefficient and should not be used in prognostic model development. (c) 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available