This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Augustin, N. Articles by Schumacher, M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The practical utility of incorporating model selection uncertainty into prognostic models for survival data

Department of Statistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

Willi Sauerbrei

Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Medizinische Informatik, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany, wfs{at}imbi.uni-freiburg.de

Martin Schumacher

Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Medizinische Informatik, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

Predictions of disease outcome in prognostic factor models are usually based on one selected model. However, often several models fit the data equally well, but these models might differ substantially in terms of included explanatory variables and might lead to different predictions for individual patients. For survival data, we discuss two approaches to account for model selection uncertainty in two data examples, with the main emphasis on variable selection in a proportional hazard Cox model. The main aim of our investigation is to establish the ways in which either of the two approaches is useful in such prognostic models. The first approach is Bayesian model averaging (BMA) adapted for the proportional hazard model, termed ‘approx. BMA’ here. As a new approach, we propose a method which averages over a set of possible models using weights estimated from bootstrap resampling as proposed by Buckland et al., but in addition, we perform an initial screening of variables based on the inclusion frequency of each variable to reduce the set of variables and corresponding models. For some necessary parameters of the procedure, investigations concerning sensible choices are still required. The main objective of prognostic models is prediction, but the interpretation of single effects is also important and models should be general enough to ensure transportability to other clinical centres. In the data examples, we compare predictions of our new approach with approx. BMA, with ‘conventional’ predictions from one selected model and with predictions from the full model. Confidence intervals are compared in one example. Comparisons are based on the partial predictive score and the Brier score. We conclude that the two model averaging methods yield similar results and are especially useful when there is a high number of potential prognostic factors, most likely some of them without influence in a multivariable context. Although the method based on bootstrap resampling lacks formal justification and requires some ad hoc decisions, it has the additional positive effect of achieving model parsimony by reducing the number of explanatory variables and dealing with correlated variables in an automatic fashion.

Key Words: bootstrap • model averaging • model selection uncertainty • prognostic factor models • survival analysis

Statistical Modelling, Vol. 5, No. 2, 95-118 (2005)
DOI: 10.1191/1471082X05st089oa


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?