首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>BMC Medicine >Three myths about risk thresholds for prediction models
【2h】

Three myths about risk thresholds for prediction models

机译:关于预测模型的风险阈值的三个神话

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

BackgroundClinical prediction models are useful in estimating a patient’s risk of having a certain disease or experiencing an event in the future based on their current characteristics. Defining an appropriate risk threshold to recommend intervention is a key challenge in bringing a risk prediction model to clinical application; such risk thresholds are often defined in an ad hoc way. This is problematic because tacitly assumed costs of false positive and false negative classifications may not be clinically sensible. For example, when choosing the risk threshold that maximizes the proportion of patients correctly classified, false positives and false negatives are assumed equally costly. Furthermore, small to moderate sample sizes may lead to unstable optimal thresholds, which requires a particularly cautious interpretation of results.
机译:背景技术临床预测模型可用于根据患者的当前特征来估计患者患某种疾病或将来发生事件的风险。定义适当的风险阈值以推荐干预措施是将风险预测模型应用于临床的主要挑战;此类风险阈值通常以临时方式定义。这是有问题的,因为默认的假阳性和假阴性分类成本在临床上可能并不明智。例如,当选择使正确分类的患者比例最大化的风险阈值时,假阳性和假阴性的代价均相等。此外,小到中等的样本量可能导致不稳定的最佳阈值,这要求对结果特别谨慎。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号