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 Scopus citations

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

Keywords

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Invited commentary: The importance of prevalence in the effectiveness of a (Bio)marker'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this