Skip to main content
Log in

Statistical methods to assess the prognostic value of risk prediction rules in clinical research

  • Mini Review
  • Published:
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prognosis aims at estimating the future course of a given disease in probabilistic terms. As in diagnosis, where clinicians are interested in knowing the accuracy of a new test to identify patients affected by a given disease, in prognosis they wish to accurately identify patients at risk of a future event conditional to one or more prognostic factors. Thus, accurate risk predictions play a primary role in all fields of clinical medicine and in geriatrics as well because they can help clinicians to tailor the intensity of a treatment and to schedule clinical surveillance according to the risk of the concerned patient. Statistical methods able to evaluate the prognostic accuracy of a risk score demand the assessment of discrimination (the Harrell’s C-index), calibration (Hosmer–May test) and risk reclassification abilities (IDI, an index of risk reclassification) of the same risk prediction rule whereas, in spite of the popular belief that traditional statistical techniques providing relative measures of effect (such as the hazard ratio derived by Cox regression analysis or the odds ratio obtained by logistic regression analysis) could be per se enough to assess the prognostic value of a biomarker or of a risk score. In this paper we provide a brief theoretical background of each statistical test and a practical approach to the issue. For didactic purposes, in the paper we also provide a dataset (n = 40) to allow the reader to train in the application of the proposed statistical methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

Data are provided in supplementary material.

References

  1. Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB (1996) Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 15:361–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Crowson CS, Atkinson EJ, Therneau TM (2016) Assessing calibration of prognostic risk scores. Stat Methods Med Res 25:1692–1706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB Jr, D'Agostino RB Jr et al (2008) Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med 27:157–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kerkmeijer LG, Monninkhof EM, van Oort IM et al (2016) PREDICT: model for prediction of survival in localized prostate cancer. World J Urol 34:789–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Schmoor C, Sauerbrei W, Schumacher M (2000) Sample size considerations for the evaluation of prognostic factors in survival analysis. Stat Med 19:441–452

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ash D, Flynn A, Battermann J et al (2000) ESTRO/EAU/EORTC recommendations on permanent seed implantation for localized prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 57:315–321

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Tripepi G, Heinze G, Jager KJ et al (2013) Risk prediction models. Nephrol Dial Transplant 28:1975–1980

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No Author has to disclose any conflict of interest that could have direct or potential influence or impart bias on the work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

GD, CT, SR, GT contributed to the study conception and design. The first draft of the manuscript was written by GD, CT, SR, GT. MG AP critically revised the manuscript and provided important intellectual contribution. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanni Tripepi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights statement

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Consent to participate

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 623 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

D’Arrigo, G., Gori, M., Pitino, A. et al. Statistical methods to assess the prognostic value of risk prediction rules in clinical research. Aging Clin Exp Res 33, 279–283 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-020-01542-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-020-01542-y

Keywords

Navigation