Invited commentary: The importance of prevalence in the effectiveness of a (Bio)marker

Arpita Ghosh, Philip E. Castle

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Metrics such as relative hazards and relative risks do not account for the prevalence of a marker over time and its relation to whether and when an outcome occurs. Uncommon markers that have good predictive values and common markers that are poorly predictive may not be (clinically) useful in predicting disease and other health outcomes. Recent work by Little et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(12):1380-1387) highlights the development of a new method that considers both factors in predicting outcomes. Measures that incorporate both marker prevalence and predictive values and therefore are measures of "effectiveness" may be broadly helpful in deciding which markers or exposures are useful in disease screening or should be targeted by health interventions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1388-1390
Number of pages3
JournalAmerican Journal of Epidemiology
Volume173
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 15 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Health

Keywords

  • biological markers
  • censored data
  • life change events
  • menopause
  • premenopause
  • survival analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Invited commentary : The importance of prevalence in the effectiveness of a (Bio)marker. / Ghosh, Arpita; Castle, Philip E.

In: American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 173, No. 12, 15.06.2011, p. 1388-1390.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{eef976546f3d44b5a6d9f15bb2adbac7,
title = "Invited commentary: The importance of prevalence in the effectiveness of a (Bio)marker",
abstract = "Metrics such as relative hazards and relative risks do not account for the prevalence of a marker over time and its relation to whether and when an outcome occurs. Uncommon markers that have good predictive values and common markers that are poorly predictive may not be (clinically) useful in predicting disease and other health outcomes. Recent work by Little et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(12):1380-1387) highlights the development of a new method that considers both factors in predicting outcomes. Measures that incorporate both marker prevalence and predictive values and therefore are measures of {"}effectiveness{"} may be broadly helpful in deciding which markers or exposures are useful in disease screening or should be targeted by health interventions.",
keywords = "biological markers, censored data, life change events, menopause, premenopause, survival analysis",
author = "Arpita Ghosh and Castle, {Philip E.}",
year = "2011",
month = "6",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1093/aje/kwr016",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "173",
pages = "1388--1390",
journal = "American Journal of Epidemiology",
issn = "0002-9262",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Invited commentary

T2 - The importance of prevalence in the effectiveness of a (Bio)marker

AU - Ghosh, Arpita

AU - Castle, Philip E.

PY - 2011/6/15

Y1 - 2011/6/15

N2 - Metrics such as relative hazards and relative risks do not account for the prevalence of a marker over time and its relation to whether and when an outcome occurs. Uncommon markers that have good predictive values and common markers that are poorly predictive may not be (clinically) useful in predicting disease and other health outcomes. Recent work by Little et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(12):1380-1387) highlights the development of a new method that considers both factors in predicting outcomes. Measures that incorporate both marker prevalence and predictive values and therefore are measures of "effectiveness" may be broadly helpful in deciding which markers or exposures are useful in disease screening or should be targeted by health interventions.

AB - Metrics such as relative hazards and relative risks do not account for the prevalence of a marker over time and its relation to whether and when an outcome occurs. Uncommon markers that have good predictive values and common markers that are poorly predictive may not be (clinically) useful in predicting disease and other health outcomes. Recent work by Little et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(12):1380-1387) highlights the development of a new method that considers both factors in predicting outcomes. Measures that incorporate both marker prevalence and predictive values and therefore are measures of "effectiveness" may be broadly helpful in deciding which markers or exposures are useful in disease screening or should be targeted by health interventions.

KW - biological markers

KW - censored data

KW - life change events

KW - menopause

KW - premenopause

KW - survival analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79958848136&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79958848136&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/aje/kwr016

DO - 10.1093/aje/kwr016

M3 - Review article

C2 - 21571873

AN - SCOPUS:79958848136

VL - 173

SP - 1388

EP - 1390

JO - American Journal of Epidemiology

JF - American Journal of Epidemiology

SN - 0002-9262

IS - 12

ER -