Strengthening the reporting of genetic risk prediction studies (GRIPS): explanation and elaboration

Integrative genomic analysis reveals cancer-associated mutations in patients with ophthalmic tumors

OBJECTIVE

Apart from the role of the retinoblastoma gene, the genomic events associated with poor outcomes in patients with ophthalmic tumors are poorly understood.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 48 patients with six types of ophthalmic tumors. We searched for high-frequency mutated genes and susceptibility genes in these patients using combined exome and transcriptome analysis.

RESULTS

We identified four clearly causative genes (TP53, PTCH1, SMO, BAP1). Susceptibility gene analysis identified hotspot genes, including RUNX1, APC, IDH2, and BRCA2, and high-frequency gene analysis identified several genes, including TP53, TTN, and MUC16. Transcriptome analysis identified 5868 differentially expressed genes, of which TOP2A and ZWINT were upregulated in all samples, while CFD, ELANE, HBA1, and HBB were downregulated. Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes enrichment analysis indicated that the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)-Akt and Transcriptional misregulation in cancer signaling pathways may be involved in ophthalmic tumorigenesis.

CONCLUSIONS

TP53 is clearly involved in ophthalmic tumorigenesis, especially in basal cell carcinoma, and the PI3K-Akt signaling pathway may be an essential pathway involved in ophthalmic tumorigenesis. RUNX1, SMO, TOP2A, and ZWINT are also highly likely to be involved in ophthalmic tumorigenesis, but further functional experiments are needed to verify the mechanisms of these genes in regulating tumorigenesis.

[Predictive capability of Cys112Arg single nucleotide polymorphisms of the apolipoprotein E gene in assessing the risk of immediate and early post-traumatic seizures]

This study is aimed at investigating epileptic seizures, one of the consequences of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Immediate and early post-traumatic seizures, as well as late post-traumatic epileptic seizures or post-traumatic epilepsy, can have different pathogenetic bases. The following key risk factors associated with post-traumatic epilepsy are known: duration of unconsciousness, gunshot wounds, intracranial hemorrhage, diffuse axonal injury, prolonged (more than 3 days) post-traumatic amnesia, acute subdural hematoma with surgical evacuation, immediate and early post-traumatic epileptic seizures, fracture of the skull bones. The role of genetic factors in post-traumatic seizures is poorly understood due to the complexity and multiple causal mechanisms. This paper addresses the role of genetic factors in the occurrence and severity of epileptic events in patients with TBI. In particular, we investigated the role of the Cys112Arg single nucleotide polymorphism of the apolipoprotein E gene. Apolipoprotein E is known for its role in the transport and metabolism of lipids and, therefore, the development of cardiovascular diseases; it is also associated with Alzheimer's disease and has recently been studied in the context of association with epilepsy. The study shows an association between this polymorphism and the risk of immediate and early epileptic seizures in patients with severe TBI.

MAOA uVNTR Genetic Variant and Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review

Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a highly prevalent multifactorial psychopathology affected by neurotransmitter levels. Monoamine Oxidase A (MAOA) influences several neural pathways by modulating these levels. This systematic review (per PRISMA protocol and PECOS strategy) endeavors to understand the MAOA uVNTR polymorphism influence on MDD and evaluate its 3R/3R and 3R* genotypic frequencies fluctuation in MDD patients from different populations. We searched the Web of Science, PubMed, Virtual Health Library, and EMBASE databases for eligible original articles that brought data on genotypic frequencies related to the MAOA uVNTR variant in patients with MDD. We excluded studies with incomplete data (including statistical data), reviews, meta-analyses, and abstracts. Initially, we found 43 articles. After removing duplicates and applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria, seven articles remained. The population samples studied were predominantly Asians, with high 3R and 4R allele frequencies. Notably, we observed higher 3R/3R (female) and 3R* (male) genotype frequencies in the healthy control groups and higher 4R/4R (female) and 4R* (male) genotype frequencies in the MDD groups in the majority of different populations. Despite some similarities in the articles analyzed, there is still no consensus on the MAOA uVNTR variant’s role in MDD pathogenesis.

Pharmacogenetics of taxane-induced neurotoxicity in breast cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Taxane-based chemotherapy regimens are used as first-line treatment for breast cancer. Neurotoxicity, mainly taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy (TIPN), remains the most important dose-limiting adverse event. Multiple genes may be associated with TIPN; however, the strength and direction of the association remain unclear. For this reason, we systematically reviewed observational studies of TIPN pharmacogenetic markers in breast cancer treatment. We conducted a systematic search of terms alluding to breast cancer, genetic markers, taxanes, and neurotoxicity in Ovid, ProQuest, PubMed, Scopus, Virtual Health, and Web of Science. We assessed the quality of evidence and bias profile. We extracted relevant variables and effect measures. Whenever possible, we performed random-effects gene meta-analyses and examined interstudy heterogeneity with meta-regression models and subgroup analyses. This study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA) reporting guidance. A total of 42 studies with 19,431 participants were included. These evaluated 262 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) across 121 genes. We conducted meta-analyses on 23 genes with 60 SNPs (19 studies and 6246 participants). Thirteen individual SNPs (ABCB1-rs2032582, ABCB1-rs3213619, BCL6/-rs1903216, /CAND1-rs17781082, CYP1B1-rs1056836, CYP2C8-rs10509681, CYP2C8-rs11572080, EPHA5-rs7349683, EPHA6-rs301927, FZD3-rs7001034, GSTP1-rs1138272, TUBB2A-rs9501929, and XKR4-rs4737264) and the overall SNPs' effect in four genes (CYP3A4, EphA5, GSTP1, and SLCO1B1) were statistically significantly associated with TIPN through meta-analysis. In conclusion, through systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that polymorphisms, and particularly 13 SNPs, are associated with TIPN, suggesting that genetics does play a role in interindividual predisposition. Further studies could potentially use these findings to develop individual risk profiles and guide decision making.

Predictive Utility of a Validated Polygenic Risk Score for Long-Term Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Young and Middle-Aged Adults

BACKGROUND

Understanding the predictive utility of previously derived polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for long-term risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and its additive value beyond traditional risk factors can inform prevention strategies.

METHODS

Data from adults 20 to 59 years of age who were free of CHD from the FOS (Framingham Offspring Study) and the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) study were analyzed. Because the PRS was derived from samples of predominantly European ancestry, individuals who self-reported White race were included. The sample was stratified by age and cohort: young (FOS, 20-39 years [median, 30 years] of age), early midlife (FOS, 40-59 years [median, 43] years of age), and late midlife (ARIC, 45-59 years [median, 52 years] of age). Two previously derived and validated prediction tools were applied: (1) a 30-year traditional risk factor score and (2) a genome-wide PRS comprising >6 million genetic variants. Hazard ratios for the association between each risk estimate and incident CHD were calculated. Predicted and observed rates of CHD were compared to assess discrimination for each model individually and together with the optimism-corrected C index (95% CI).

RESULTS

Among 9757 participants, both the traditional risk factor score (hazard ratio per 1 SD, 2.60 [95% CI, 2.08-3.27], 2.09 [95% CI, 1.83-2.40], and 2.11 [95% CI, 1.96-2.28]) and the PRS (hazard ratio, 1.98 [95% CI, 1.70-2.30], 1.64 [95% CI, 1.47-1.84], and 1.22 [95% CI, 1.15-1.30]) were significantly associated with incident CHD in young, early midlife, and late midlife, respectively. Discrimination was similar or better for the traditional risk factor score (C index, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.70-0.78], 0.70 [95% CI, 0.67-0.72], and 0.72 [95% CI, 0.70-0.73]) compared with an age- and sex-adjusted PRS (0.73 [95% CI, 0.69-0.78], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.62-0.69], and 0.66 [95% CI, 0.64-0.67]) in young, early-midlife, and late-midlife participants, respectively. The ΔC index when PRS was added to the traditional risk factor score was 0.03 (95% CI, 0.001-0.05), 0.02 (95% CI, -0.002 to 0.037), and 0.002 (95% CI, -0.002 to 0.006) in young, early-midlife, and late-midlife participants, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a statistically significant association between PRS and 30-year risk of CHD, the C statistic improved only marginally with the addition of PRS to the traditional risk factor model among young adults and did not improve among midlife adults. PRS, an immutable factor that cannot be directly intervened on, has minimal clinical utility for long-term CHD prediction when added to a traditional risk factor model.

Role of Polygenic Risk Score in Cancer Precision Medicine of Non-European Populations: A Systematic Review

The development of new screening methods and diagnostic tests for traits, common diseases, and cancer is linked to the advent of precision genomic medicine, in which health care is individually adjusted based on a person’s lifestyle, environmental influences, and genetic variants. Based on genome-wide association study (GWAS) analysis, rapid and continuing progress in the discovery of relevant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for traits or complex diseases has increased interest in the potential application of genetic risk models for routine health practice. The polygenic risk score (PRS) estimates an individual’s genetic risk of a trait or disease, calculated by employing a weighted sum of allele counts combined with non-genetic variables. However, 98.38% of PRS records held in public databases relate to the European population. Therefore, PRSs for multiethnic populations are urgently needed. We performed a systematic review to discuss the role of polygenic risk scores in advancing precision medicine for different cancer types in multiethnic non-European populations.

BDNF Genetic Variant and Its Genotypic Fluctuation in Major Depressive Disorder

Major depressive disorder (MDD) still has an unknown etiology and mechanisms. Many studies have been conducted seeking to associate and understand the connection of different genetic variants to this disease. Researchers have extensively studied the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) Val66Met genetic variant in MDD; yet, their findings remain inconsistent. This systematic review sought to verify the GG (Val/Val) genotype frequency fluctuation in different populations with MDD. For this, we searched in different databases and, after applying the eligibility criteria, selected 17 articles. Most studies demonstrate the higher frequency of the ancestral (wild) GG (Val/Val) genotype, although associations of the polymorphic A (Met) allele, changes in BDNF protein serum levels, or both were also found in MDD, whether related to the disease's development or other factors. Nevertheless, despite these findings, disagreements between several studies are seen. For this reason, further BDNF Val66Met genetic variant studies should not only bridge the gap in the knowledge of this polymorphism's role in MDD's different facets but also analyze the genotypic and phenotypic heterogeneity in different populations to help provide a better quality of life for patients.

Associating complex traits with genetic variants: polygenic risk scores, pleiotropy and endophenotypes

Genotype-phenotype causal modeling has evolved significantly since Johannsen's and Wright's original designs were published. The development of genomewide assays to interrogate and detect possible causal variants associated with complex traits has expanded the scope of genotype-phenotype research considerably. Clusters of causal variants discovered by genomewide assays and associated with complex traits have been used to develop polygenic risk scores to predict clinical diagnoses of multidimensional human disorders. However, genomewide investigations have met with many challenges to their research designs and statistical complexities which have hindered the reliability and validity of their predictions. Findings linked to differences in heritability estimates between causal clusters and complex traits among unrelated individuals remain a research area of some controversy. Causal models developed from case-control studies as opposed to experiments, as well as other issues concerning the genotype-phenotype causal model and the extent to which various forms of pleiotropy and the concept of the endophenotype add to its complexity, will be reviewed.

Development and validation of delirium prediction model for critically ill adults parameterized to ICU admission acuity

Background

Risk prediction models allow clinicians to forecast which individuals are at a higher risk for developing a particular outcome. We developed and internally validated a delirium prediction model for incident delirium parameterized to patient ICU admission acuity.

Methods

This retrospective, observational, fourteen medical-surgical ICU cohort study evaluated consecutive delirium-free adults surviving hospital stay with ICU length of stay (LOS) greater than or equal to 24 hours with both an admission APACHE II score and an admission type (e.g., elective post-surgery, emergency post-surgery, non-surgical) in whom delirium was assessed using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). Risk factors included in the model were readily available in electric medical records. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic (LASSO) regression was used for model development. Discrimination was determined using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Internal validation was performed by cross-validation. Predictive performance was determined using measures of accuracy and clinical utility was assessed by decision-curve analysis.

Results

A total of 8,878 patients were included. Delirium incidence was 49.9% (n = 4,431). The delirium prediction model was parameterized to seven patient cohorts, admission type (3 cohorts) or mean quartile APACHE II score (4 cohorts). All parameterized cohort models were well calibrated. The AUC ranged from 0.67 to 0.78 (95% confidence intervals [CI] ranged from 0.63 to 0.79). Model accuracy varied across admission types; sensitivity ranged from 53.2% to 63.9% while specificity ranged from 69.0% to 74.6%. Across mean quartile APACHE II scores, sensitivity ranged from 58.2% to 59.7% while specificity ranged from 70.1% to 73.6%. The clinical utility of the parameterized cohort prediction model to predict and prevent incident delirium was greater than preventing incident delirium by treating all or none of the patients.

Conclusions

Our results support external validation of a prediction model parameterized to patient ICU admission acuity to predict a patients’ risk for ICU delirium. Classification of patients’ risk for ICU delirium by admission acuity may allow for efficient initiation of prevention measures based on individual risk profiles.

Waste, Leaks, and Failures in the Biomarker Pipeline

BACKGROUND

The large, expanding literature on biomarkers is characterized by almost ubiquitous significant results, with claims about the potential importance, but few of these discovered biomarkers are used in routine clinical care.

CONTENT

The pipeline of biomarker development includes several specific stages: discovery, validation, clinical translation, evaluation, implementation (and, in the case of nonutility, deimplementation). Each of these stages can be plagued by problems that cause failures of the overall pipeline. Some problems are nonspecific challenges for all biomedical investigation, while others are specific to the peculiarities of biomarker research. Discovery suffers from poor methods and incomplete and selective reporting. External independent validation is limited. Selection for clinical translation is often shaped by nonrational choices. Evaluation is sparse and the clinical utility of many biomarkers remains unknown. The regulatory environment for biomarkers remains weak and guidelines can reach biased or divergent recommendations. Removing inefficient or even harmful biomarkers that have been entrenched in clinical care can meet with major resistance.

SUMMARY

The current biomarker pipeline is too prone to failures. Consideration of clinical needs should become a starting point for the development of biomarkers. Improvements can include the use of more stringent methodology, better reporting, larger collaborative studies, careful external independent validation, preregistration, rigorous systematic reviews and umbrella reviews, pivotal randomized trials, and implementation and deimplementation studies. Incentives should be aligned toward delivering useful biomarkers.

Neuropathic pain phenotyping by international consensus (NeuroPPIC) for genetic studies: a NeuPSIG systematic review, Delphi survey, and expert panel recommendations

For genetic research to contribute more fully to furthering our knowledge of neuropathic pain, we require an agreed, valid, and feasible approach to phenotyping, to allow collaboration and replication in samples of sufficient size. Results from genetic studies on neuropathic pain have been inconsistent and have met with replication difficulties, in part because of differences in phenotypes used for case ascertainment. Because there is no consensus on the nature of these phenotypes, nor on the methods of collecting them, this study aimed to provide guidelines on collecting and reporting phenotypes in cases and controls for genetic studies. Consensus was achieved through a staged approach: (1) systematic literature review to identify all neuropathic pain phenotypes used in previous genetic studies; (2) Delphi survey to identify the most useful neuropathic pain phenotypes and their validity and feasibility; and (3) meeting of experts to reach consensus on the optimal phenotype(s) to be collected from patients with neuropathic pain for genetic studies. A basic "entry level" set of phenotypes was identified for any genetic study of neuropathic pain. This set identifies cases of "possible" neuropathic pain, and controls, and includes: (1) a validated symptom-based questionnaire to determine whether any pain is likely to be neuropathic; (2) body chart or checklist to identify whether the area of pain distribution is neuroanatomically logical; and (3) details of pain history (intensity, duration, any formal diagnosis). This NeuroPPIC "entry level" set of phenotypes can be expanded by more extensive and specific measures, as determined by scientific requirements and resource availability.

Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): The TRIPOD Statement

CONTEXT

Prediction models are developed to aid health care providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed.

OBJECTIVE

The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, health care professionals, and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document.

CONCLUSIONS

To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org).

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes.

Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement

Prediction models are developed to aid health care providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed. The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, health care professionals, and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors. The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document. To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org).

Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement

Prediction models are developed to aid health care providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed. The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, health care professionals, and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors. The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document. To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org).

Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement

Prediction models are developed to aid healthcare providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision-making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed. The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, healthcare professionals and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors. The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study, regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document. To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org).

Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement

BACKGROUND

Prediction models are developed to aid healthcare providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision-making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, healthcare professionals and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors.

RESULTS

The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document.

CONCLUSIONS

To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org).

Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement

BACKGROUND

Prediction models are developed to aid healthcare providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision-making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed. The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed.

METHODS

An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, healthcare professionals and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors.

RESULTS

The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study.

CONCLUSION

The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document. A complete checklist is available at http://www.tripod-statement.org.

Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement

Prediction models are developed to aid health-care providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed. The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, health-care professionals, and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors. The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document. To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org).

Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. The TRIPOD Group

BACKGROUND

Prediction models are developed to aid health care providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed.

METHODS

The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, health care professionals, and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors.

RESULTS

The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document.

CONCLUSIONS

To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org).

Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration

The TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) Statement includes a 22-item checklist, which aims to improve the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale; clarifies the meaning of each item; and discusses why transparent reporting is important, with a view to assessing risk of bias and clinical usefulness of the prediction model. Each checklist item of the TRIPOD Statement is explained in detail and accompanied by published examples of good reporting. The document also provides a valuable reference of issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing prediction model studies. To aid the editorial process and help peer reviewers and, ultimately, readers and systematic reviewers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission. The TRIPOD checklist can also be downloaded from www.tripod-statement.org.

Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement

Prediction models are developed to aid health care providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed. The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, health care professionals, and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors. The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document. To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org).

Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement

Prediction models are developed to aid health care providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed. The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, health care professionals, and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors. The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document. To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org).

Assessing the incremental value of diagnostic and prognostic markers: a review and illustration

BACKGROUND

New markers may improve prediction of diagnostic and prognostic outcomes. We review various measures to quantify the incremental value of markers over standard, readily available characteristics.

METHODS

Widely used traditional measures include the improvement in model fit or in the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). New measures include the net reclassification index (NRI) and decision-analytic measures, such as the fraction of true-positive classifications penalized for false-positive classifications [net benefit (NB)]. For illustration, we discuss a case study on the presence of residual tumour vs. benign tissue in 544 patients with testicular cancer. We assessed three tumour markers [Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), Human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) and Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH)] for their incremental value over currently standard clinical predictors.

RESULTS

AUC and R(2) values suggested adding continuous LDH and AFP whereas NB only favoured HCG as a potentially promising marker at a clinically defendable decision threshold of 20% risk. The NRI suggested reclassification potential of all three markers.

CONCLUSIONS

The improvement in standard discrimination measures, which focus on finding variables that might be promising across all decision thresholds, may not detect the most informative markers at a specific threshold of particular clinical relevance. When a marker is intended to support decision-making, calculation of the improvement in a decision-analytic measure, such as NB, is preferable over an overall judgment as obtained from the AUC in ROC analysis.