...
首页> 外文期刊>American Journal of Epidemiology >Pencina et al. respond to 'The incremental value of new markers' and 'Clinically relevant measures? A note of caution'.
【24h】

Pencina et al. respond to 'The incremental value of new markers' and 'Clinically relevant measures? A note of caution'.

机译:Pencina等。回应“新标记的增量值”和“临床相关措施?注意”。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

We thank Drs. Cook, Kerr, Bansal, and Pepe for then-careful review of our work and insightful critiques. Several of the points they raise require further highlighting, discussion, or rebuttal.In her commentary, Dr. Cook presents 2 interesting examples that shed additional light on some of the properties of the 3 measures of interest (1). On the basis of the developments presented by us (2), as well as those presented by Kerr et al. (3), the increments between the measures of interest must go in the same direction. Cook's example with diabetes shows that this need not be the case for binary variables. She explains the reason for this anomaly: "The problem is that counterintuitively, there are more cases among people without diabetes than among those with because nondiabetic participants comprise the majority of the cohort" (1, p. 488) and concludes that "[t]he new model may look worse because more are moving in the wrong direction, but the correct changes are larger and the incorrect changes are much smaller" (1, p. 488).
机译:我们感谢博士。 Cook,Kerr,Bansal和Pepe对我们的工作和有见地的评论进行了仔细的审查。他们提出的几点要点需要进一步强调,讨论或反驳。在库克博士的评论中,他提出了两个有趣的例子,这些例子进一步揭示了这三个感兴趣的指标的某些特性(1)。根据我们(2)提出的发展以及Kerr等人提出的发展。 (3),感兴趣的度量之间的增量必须沿同一方向。库克关于糖尿病的例子表明,二元变量不一定是这种情况。她解释了造成这种异常的原因:“与直觉相反,问题在于,没有糖尿病的人比患有糖尿病的人更多,因为非糖尿病患者占队列的大多数”(1,第488页),并得出结论说:“ [t新模型的外观可能会更糟,因为有更多的方向错误,但正确的变化更大,而错误的变化却小得多”(1,第488页)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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