选择出院后30天内死亡风险预测模型的贝叶斯平均模型:SILVER-AMI研究。

Terrence E Murphy, Sui W Tsang, Linda S Leo-Summers, Mary Geda, Dae H Kim, Esther Oh, Heather G Allore, John Dodson, Alexandra M Hajduk, Thomas M Gill, Sarwat I Chaudhry
{"title":"选择出院后30天内死亡风险预测模型的贝叶斯平均模型:SILVER-AMI研究。","authors":"Terrence E Murphy,&nbsp;Sui W Tsang,&nbsp;Linda S Leo-Summers,&nbsp;Mary Geda,&nbsp;Dae H Kim,&nbsp;Esther Oh,&nbsp;Heather G Allore,&nbsp;John Dodson,&nbsp;Alexandra M Hajduk,&nbsp;Thomas M Gill,&nbsp;Sarwat I Chaudhry","doi":"10.6000/1929-6029.2019.08.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We describe a selection process for a multivariable risk prediction model of death within 30 days of hospital discharge in the SILVER-AMI study. This large, multi-site observational study included observational data from 2000 persons 75 years and older hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) from 94 community and academic hospitals across the United States and featured a large number of candidate variables from demographic, cardiac, and geriatric domains, whose missing values were multiply imputed prior to model selection. Our objective was to demonstrate that Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA) represents a viable model selection approach in this context. BMA was compared to three other backward-selection approaches: Akaike information criterion, Bayesian information criterion, and traditional p-value. Traditional backward-selection was used to choose 20 candidate variables from the initial, larger pool of five imputations. Models were subsequently chosen from those candidates using the four approaches on each of 10 imputations. With average posterior effect probability ≥ 50% as the selection criterion, BMA chose the most parsimonious model with four variables, with average C statistic of 78%, good calibration, optimism of 1.3%, and heuristic shrinkage of 0.93. These findings illustrate the utility and flexibility of using BMA for selecting a multivariable risk prediction model from many candidates over multiply imputed datasets.</p>","PeriodicalId":73480,"journal":{"name":"International journal of statistics in medical research","volume":"8 ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3d/86/nihms-1027580.PMC6553647.pdf","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bayesian Model Averaging for Selection of a Risk Prediction Model for Death within Thirty Days of Discharge: The SILVER-AMI Study.\",\"authors\":\"Terrence E Murphy,&nbsp;Sui W Tsang,&nbsp;Linda S Leo-Summers,&nbsp;Mary Geda,&nbsp;Dae H Kim,&nbsp;Esther Oh,&nbsp;Heather G Allore,&nbsp;John Dodson,&nbsp;Alexandra M Hajduk,&nbsp;Thomas M Gill,&nbsp;Sarwat I Chaudhry\",\"doi\":\"10.6000/1929-6029.2019.08.01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We describe a selection process for a multivariable risk prediction model of death within 30 days of hospital discharge in the SILVER-AMI study. This large, multi-site observational study included observational data from 2000 persons 75 years and older hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) from 94 community and academic hospitals across the United States and featured a large number of candidate variables from demographic, cardiac, and geriatric domains, whose missing values were multiply imputed prior to model selection. Our objective was to demonstrate that Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA) represents a viable model selection approach in this context. BMA was compared to three other backward-selection approaches: Akaike information criterion, Bayesian information criterion, and traditional p-value. Traditional backward-selection was used to choose 20 candidate variables from the initial, larger pool of five imputations. Models were subsequently chosen from those candidates using the four approaches on each of 10 imputations. With average posterior effect probability ≥ 50% as the selection criterion, BMA chose the most parsimonious model with four variables, with average C statistic of 78%, good calibration, optimism of 1.3%, and heuristic shrinkage of 0.93. These findings illustrate the utility and flexibility of using BMA for selecting a multivariable risk prediction model from many candidates over multiply imputed datasets.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73480,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of statistics in medical research\",\"volume\":\"8 \",\"pages\":\"1-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3d/86/nihms-1027580.PMC6553647.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of statistics in medical research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-6029.2019.08.01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/4/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of statistics in medical research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-6029.2019.08.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/4/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

在SILVER-AMI研究中,我们描述了出院后30天内死亡的多变量风险预测模型的选择过程。这项大型、多地点观察性研究包括来自美国94家社区和学术医院的2000名75岁及以上急性心肌梗死(AMI)住院患者的观察数据,并具有大量来自人口统计学、心脏和老年学领域的候选变量,其缺失值在模型选择之前进行了多重估算。我们的目标是证明贝叶斯模型平均(BMA)在这种情况下代表了一种可行的模型选择方法。将BMA与另外三种反向选择方法(Akaike信息准则、Bayesian信息准则和传统p值)进行比较。传统的反向选择方法是从初始的、较大的5个输入池中选择20个候选变量。随后从这些候选模型中选择模型,使用四种方法对每10种imputation。以平均后验效应概率≥50%为选择标准,BMA选择了最简约的四变量模型,平均C统计量为78%,校正良好,乐观度为1.3%,启发式收缩率为0.93。这些发现说明了使用BMA从多个输入数据集的许多候选数据中选择多变量风险预测模型的实用性和灵活性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Bayesian Model Averaging for Selection of a Risk Prediction Model for Death within Thirty Days of Discharge: The SILVER-AMI Study.

Bayesian Model Averaging for Selection of a Risk Prediction Model for Death within Thirty Days of Discharge: The SILVER-AMI Study.

We describe a selection process for a multivariable risk prediction model of death within 30 days of hospital discharge in the SILVER-AMI study. This large, multi-site observational study included observational data from 2000 persons 75 years and older hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) from 94 community and academic hospitals across the United States and featured a large number of candidate variables from demographic, cardiac, and geriatric domains, whose missing values were multiply imputed prior to model selection. Our objective was to demonstrate that Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA) represents a viable model selection approach in this context. BMA was compared to three other backward-selection approaches: Akaike information criterion, Bayesian information criterion, and traditional p-value. Traditional backward-selection was used to choose 20 candidate variables from the initial, larger pool of five imputations. Models were subsequently chosen from those candidates using the four approaches on each of 10 imputations. With average posterior effect probability ≥ 50% as the selection criterion, BMA chose the most parsimonious model with four variables, with average C statistic of 78%, good calibration, optimism of 1.3%, and heuristic shrinkage of 0.93. These findings illustrate the utility and flexibility of using BMA for selecting a multivariable risk prediction model from many candidates over multiply imputed datasets.

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
CiteScore
0.40
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信