Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
ERA-EDTA Registry, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2017 Apr 1;32(suppl_2):ii1-ii5. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfw459.
Prediction research is a distinct field of epidemiologic research, which should be clearly separated from aetiological research. Both prediction and aetiology make use of multivariable modelling, but the underlying research aim and interpretation of results are very different. Aetiology aims at uncovering the causal effect of a specific risk factor on an outcome, adjusting for confounding factors that are selected based on pre-existing knowledge of causal relations. In contrast, prediction aims at accurately predicting the risk of an outcome using multiple predictors collectively, where the final prediction model is usually based on statistically significant, but not necessarily causal, associations in the data at hand.In both scientific and clinical practice, however, the two are often confused, resulting in poor-quality publications with limited interpretability and applicability. A major problem is the frequently encountered aetiological interpretation of prediction results, where individual variables in a prediction model are attributed causal meaning. This article stresses the differences in use and interpretation of aetiological and prediction studies, and gives examples of common pitfalls.
预测研究是流行病学研究的一个独特领域,应将其与病因学研究明确区分开来。预测和病因学都使用多变量建模,但研究目的和结果解释却大不相同。病因学旨在揭示特定风险因素对结果的因果效应,调整基于因果关系先验知识选择的混杂因素。相比之下,预测旨在使用多个预测因子准确预测结果的风险,最终的预测模型通常基于手头数据中具有统计学意义但不一定具有因果关系的关联。然而,在科学和临床实践中,这两者经常被混淆,导致发表的论文质量较差,可解释性和适用性有限。一个主要问题是频繁出现的将预测结果归因于病因的解释,即预测模型中的个别变量被赋予因果意义。本文强调了病因学和预测研究在使用和解释上的差异,并给出了常见陷阱的示例。