4.5 Article

Statistical methods for building better biomarkers of chronic kidney disease

期刊

STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
卷 38, 期 11, 页码 1903-1917

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/sim.8091

关键词

calibration; cost-benefit; discrimination; risk communication; risk model; validation

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [ZIADK043400] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The last two decades have witnessed an explosion in research focused on the development and assessment of novel biomarkers for improved prognosis of diseases. As a result, best practice standards guiding biomarker research have undergone extensive development. Currently, there is great interest in the promise of biomarkers to enhance research efforts and clinical practice in the setting of chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury, and glomerular disease. However, some have questioned whether biomarkers currently add value to the clinical practice of nephrology. The current state of the art pertaining to statistical analyses regarding the use of such measures is critical. In December 2014, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases convened a meeting, Toward Building Better Biomarker Statistical Methodology, with the goals of summarizing the current best practice recommendations and articulating new directions for methodological research. This report summarizes its conclusions and describes areas that need attention. Suggestions are made regarding metrics that should be commonly reported. We outline the methodological issues related to traditional metrics and considerations in prognostic modeling, including discrimination and case mix, calibration, validation, and cost-benefit analysis. We highlight the approach to improved risk communication and the value of graphical displays. Finally, we address some new frontiers in prognostic biomarker research, including the competing risk framework, the use of longitudinal biomarkers, and analyses in distributed research networks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据