A critical appraisal of logistic regression‐based nomograms, artificial neural networks, classification and regression‐tree models, look‐up tables and risk‐group stratification models for prostate cancer

DOI Web Site Web Site 1 Citations

Description

<jats:sec><jats:title>OBJECTIVE</jats:title><jats:p>To evaluate several methods of predicting prostate cancer‐related outcomes, i.e. nomograms, look‐up tables, artificial neural networks (ANN), classification and regression tree (CART) analyses and risk‐group stratification (RGS) models, all of which represent valid alternatives.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>METHODS</jats:title><jats:p>We present four direct comparisons, where a nomogram was compared to either an ANN, a look‐up table, a CART model or a RGS model. In all comparisons we assessed the predictive accuracy and performance characteristics of both models.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>RESULTS</jats:title><jats:p>Nomograms have several advantages over ANN, look‐up tables, CART and RGS models, the most fundamental being a higher predictive accuracy and better performance characteristics.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>CONCLUSION</jats:title><jats:p>These results suggest that nomograms are more accurate and have better performance characteristics than their alternatives. However, ANN, look‐up tables, CART analyses and RGS models all rely on methodologically sound and valid alternatives, which should not be abandoned.</jats:p></jats:sec>

Journal

Citations (1)*help

See more

Report a problem

Back to top