分类与关联模型:是否应该采用相同的方法?

Ziding Feng
{"title":"分类与关联模型:是否应该采用相同的方法?","authors":"Ziding Feng","doi":"10.3109/00365513.2010.493387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Association and classification models differ fundamentally in objectives, measurements, and clinical context specificity. Association studies aim to identify biomarker association with disease in a study population and provide etiologic insights. Common association measurements are odds ratio, hazard ratio, and correlation coefficient. Classification studies aim to evaluate biomarker use in aiding specific clinical decisions for individual patients. Common classification measurements are sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Good association is usually a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for good classification. Methods for developing classification models have mainly used the criteria for association models, usually minimizing total classification error without consideration of clinical application settings, and therefore are not optimal for classification purposes. We suggest that developing classification models by focusing on the region of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve relevant to the intended clinical application optimizes the model for the intended application setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":76518,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation. Supplementum","volume":"242 ","pages":"53-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3140431/pdf/nihms284052.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Classification versus association models: should the same methods apply?\",\"authors\":\"Ziding Feng\",\"doi\":\"10.3109/00365513.2010.493387\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Association and classification models differ fundamentally in objectives, measurements, and clinical context specificity. Association studies aim to identify biomarker association with disease in a study population and provide etiologic insights. Common association measurements are odds ratio, hazard ratio, and correlation coefficient. Classification studies aim to evaluate biomarker use in aiding specific clinical decisions for individual patients. Common classification measurements are sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Good association is usually a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for good classification. Methods for developing classification models have mainly used the criteria for association models, usually minimizing total classification error without consideration of clinical application settings, and therefore are not optimal for classification purposes. We suggest that developing classification models by focusing on the region of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve relevant to the intended clinical application optimizes the model for the intended application setting.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":76518,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation. Supplementum\",\"volume\":\"242 \",\"pages\":\"53-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3140431/pdf/nihms284052.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation. Supplementum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3109/00365513.2010.493387\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation. Supplementum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3109/00365513.2010.493387","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关联和分类模型在目标、测量和临床特异性方面存在根本差异。关联研究旨在确定研究人群中与疾病相关的生物标志物,并提供病因学见解。常见的关联测量有优势比、风险比和相关系数。分类研究的目的是评估生物标志物在帮助个体患者特定临床决策中的应用。常用的分类测量方法有敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)。良好的联想通常是良好分类的必要条件,但不是充分条件。建立分类模型的方法主要使用关联模型的标准,通常将总分类误差最小化,而不考虑临床应用环境,因此对于分类目的不是最优的。我们建议通过关注与预期临床应用相关的受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线区域来开发分类模型,以优化预期应用环境的模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Classification versus association models: should the same methods apply?

Association and classification models differ fundamentally in objectives, measurements, and clinical context specificity. Association studies aim to identify biomarker association with disease in a study population and provide etiologic insights. Common association measurements are odds ratio, hazard ratio, and correlation coefficient. Classification studies aim to evaluate biomarker use in aiding specific clinical decisions for individual patients. Common classification measurements are sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Good association is usually a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for good classification. Methods for developing classification models have mainly used the criteria for association models, usually minimizing total classification error without consideration of clinical application settings, and therefore are not optimal for classification purposes. We suggest that developing classification models by focusing on the region of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve relevant to the intended clinical application optimizes the model for the intended application setting.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信