INSERM, UMR1219, Univ. Bordeaux, ISPED, Bordeaux, France.
Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Stat Methods Med Res. 2019 Dec;28(12):3649-3666. doi: 10.1177/0962280218811837. Epub 2018 Nov 22.
After the diagnosis of a disease, one major objective is to predict cumulative probabilities of events such as clinical relapse or death from the individual information collected up to a prediction time, usually including biomarker repeated measurements. Several competing estimators have been proposed, mainly from two approaches: joint modelling and landmarking. These approaches differ by the information used, the model assumptions and the complexity of the computational procedures. This paper aims to review the two approaches, precisely define the derived estimators of dynamic predictions and compare their performances notably in case of misspecification. The ultimate goal is to provide key elements for the use of individual dynamic predictions in clinical practice. Prediction of two competing causes of prostate cancer progression from the history of prostate-specific antigen is used as a motivated example. We formally define the quantity to estimate and its estimators, propose techniques to assess the uncertainty around predictions and validate them. We then conduct an in-depth simulation study compare the estimators in terms of prediction error, discriminatory power, efficiency and robustness to model assumptions. We show that prediction tools should be handled with care, in particular by properly specifying models and estimators.
疾病诊断后,主要目标之一是根据预测时间内收集的个体信息,预测临床复发或死亡等事件的累积概率,这些信息通常包括生物标志物的重复测量。已经提出了几种相互竞争的估计量,主要来自两种方法:联合建模和定标。这些方法的区别在于所使用的信息、模型假设和计算过程的复杂性。本文旨在回顾这两种方法,准确定义动态预测的导出估计量,并特别比较它们在模型误设情况下的性能。最终目标是为在临床实践中使用个体动态预测提供关键要素。使用前列腺特异性抗原史预测前列腺癌进展的两种竞争性原因作为有动机的示例。我们正式定义了要估计的量及其估计量,提出了评估预测不确定性的技术并对其进行了验证。然后,我们进行了深入的模拟研究,比较了这些估计量在预测误差、判别能力、效率和对模型假设的稳健性方面的性能。我们表明,预测工具应谨慎使用,特别是通过正确指定模型和估计量。