Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 15, No. 2, 2012
Issue release date: January 2012
Public Health Genomics 2012;15:98–105
(DOI:10.1159/000334436)

Risk Prediction Models: A Framework for Assessment

Dent T.H.S. · Wright C.F. · Stephan B.C.M. · Brayne C. · Janssens A.C.J.W.
To view the fulltext, log in and/or choose pay-per-view option

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Abstract

Background: Medical risk prediction models estimate the likelihood of future health-related events. Many make use of information derived from analysis of the genome. Models predict health outcomes such as cardiovascular disease, stroke and cancer, and for some conditions several models exist. Although risk models can help decision-making in clinical medicine and public health, they can also be harmful, for example, by misdirecting clinical effort away from those who are most likely to benefit towards people with less need, thus exacerbating health inequalities. Discussion: Risk prediction models need careful assessment before implementation, but the current approach to their development, evaluation and implementation is inappropriate. As a result, some models are pressed into use before it is clear whether they are suitable, while in other cases there is confusion about which model to use. This paper proposes an approach to the appraisal of risk-scoring models, based on a conference of UK experts. Summary: By specifying what needs to be known before a model can be judged suitable for translation from research into practice, we can ensure that useful models are taken up promptly, that less well-proven ones undergo further evaluation and that resources are not wasted on ineffective ones.



Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Royston P, Moons KG, Altman DG, Vergouwe Y: Prognosis and prognostic research: developing a prognostic model. BMJ 2009;338:b604.
  2. Dent TH: Predicting the risk of coronary heart disease I. The use of conventional risk markers. Atherosclerosis 2010;213:345–351.
  3. Dent TH: Predicting the risk of coronary heart disease. II: the role of novel molecular biomarkers and genetics in estimating risk, and the future of risk prediction. Atherosclerosis 2010;213:352–362.
  4. Shah T, Casas JP, Cooper JA, Tzoulaki I, Sofat R, McCormack V, Smeeth L, Deanfield JE, Lowe GD, Rumley A, Fowkes FG, Humphries SE, Hingorani AD: Critical appraisal of CRP measurement for the prediction of coronary heart disease events: new data and systematic review of 31 prospective cohorts. Int J Epidemiol 2009;38:217–231.
  5. Talmud PJ, Cooper JA, Palmen J, Lovering R, Drenos F, Hingorani AD, Humphries SE: Chromosome 9p21.3 coronary heart disease locus genotype and prospective risk of CHD in healthy middle-aged men. Clin Chem 2008;54:467–474.
  6. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C, Robson J, Sheikh A, Brindle P: Predicting risk of type 2 diabetes in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QDScore. BMJ2009;338:b880.
  7. Talmud PJ, Hingorani AD, Cooper JA, Marmot MG, Brunner EJ, Kumari M, Kivimäki M, Humphries SE: Utility of genetic and non-genetic risk factors in prediction of type 2 diabetes: Whitehall II prospective cohort study. BMJ 2010;340:b4838.
  8. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, Corle DK, Green SB, Schairer C, Mulvihill JJ: Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989;81:1879–1886.
  9. Antoniou AC, Cunningham AP, Peto J, Evans DG, Lalloo F, Narod SA, Risch HA, Eyfjord JE, Hopper JL, Southey MC, Olsson H, Johannsson O, Borg A, Pasini B, Radice P, Manoukian S, Eccles DM, Tang N, Olah E, Anton-Culver H, Warner E, Lubinski J, Gronwald J, Gorski B, Tryggvadottir L, Syrjakoski K, Kallioniemi OP, Eerola H, Nevanlinna H, Pharoah PD, Easton DF: The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions. Br J Cancer 2008;98:1457–1466.
  10. Mook S, Van’t Veer LJ, Rutgers EJ, Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Cardoso F: Individualization of therapy using Mammaprint: from development to the MINDACT Trial. Cancer Genomics Proteomics 2007;4:147–155.
  11. Harrison DA, Rowan KM: Outcome prediction in critical care: the ICNARC model. Curr Opin Crit Care 2008;14:506–512.
  12. Edelman E, Eng C: A practical guide to interpretation and clinical application of personal genomic screening. BMJ 2009;339:b4253.
  13. Altman DG, Vergouwe Y, Royston P, Moons KG: Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model. BMJ 2009;338:b605.
  14. Janssens AC, Ioannidis JPA, van Duijn CM, Little J, Khoury MJ; GRIPS Group: Strengthening the reporting of genetic risk prediction studies: the GRIPS statement. BMJ 2011;342:d631.
  15. Haddow JE, Palomaki GE: A model process for the evaluating data on emerging genetic tests; in Khoury MJ, Little J, Burke W (eds): Human Genome Epidemiology: Scope and Strategies. New York, Oxford University Press, 2004, pp 217–233.
  16. Hlatky MA, Greenland P, Arnett DK, Ballantyne CM, Criqui MH, Elkind MS, Go AS, Harrell FE Jr, Hong Y, Howard BV, Howard VJ, Hsue PY, Kramer CM, McConnell JP, Normand SL, O’Donnell CJ, Smith SC Jr, Wilson PW; American Heart Association Expert Panel on Subclinical Atherosclerotic Diseases and Emerging Risk Factors and the Stroke Council: Criteria for evaluation of novel markers of cardiovascular risk: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2009;119:2408–2416.
  17. Stephan BC, Kurth T, Matthews FE, Brayne C, Dufouil C: Dementia risk prediction in the population: are screening models accurate? Nat Rev Neurol 2010;6:318–326.


Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50