Statistically Efficient Ways to Quantify Added Predictive Value of New Measurements

Researchers have used contorted, inefficient, and arbitrary analyses to demonstrated added value in biomarkers, genes, and new lab measurements. Traditional statistical measures have always been up to the task, and are more powerful and more flexible. It’s time to revisit them, and to add a few slight twists to make them more helpful.

In Machine Learning Predictions for Health Care the Confusion Matrix is a Matrix of Confusion

The performance metrics chosen for prediction tools, and for Machine Learning in particular, have significant implications for health care and a penetrating understanding of the AUROC will lead to better methods, greater ML value, and ultimately, benefit patients.

Viewpoints on Heterogeneity of Treatment Effect and Precision Medicine

This article provides my reflections after the PCORI/PACE Evidence and the Individual Patient meeting on 2018-05-31. The discussion includes a high-level view of heterogeneity of treatment effect in optimizing treatment for individual patients.

Navigating Statistical Modeling and Machine Learning

This article elaborates on Frank Harrell’s post providing guidance in choosing between machine learning and statistical modeling for a prediction project.

Road Map for Choosing Between Statistical Modeling and Machine Learning

This article provides general guidance to help researchers choose between machine learning and statistical modeling for a prediction project.

Is Medicine Mesmerized by Machine Learning?

Deep learning and other forms of machine learning are getting a lot of press in medicine. The reality doesn’t match the hype, and interpretable statistical models still have a lot to offer.

How Can Machine Learning be Reliable When the Sample is Adequate for Only One Feature?

It is easy to compute the sample size N1 needed to reliably estimate how one predictor relates to an outcome. It is next to impossible for a machine learning algorithm entertaining hundreds of features to yield reliable answers when the sample size < N1.

EHRs and RCTs: Outcome Prediction vs. Optimal Treatment Selection

Frank Harrell Professor of Biostatistics Vanderbilt University School of Medicine Laura Lazzeroni Professor of Psychiatry and, by courtesy, of Medicine (Cardiovascular Medicine) and of Biomedical Data Science Stanford University School of Medicine Revised July 17, 2017 It is often said that randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for learning about therapeutic effectiveness. This is because the treatment is assigned at random so no variables, measured or unmeasured, will be truly related to treatment assignment.

Statistical Errors in the Medical Literature

Misinterpretation of P-values and Main Study Results Dichotomania Problems With Change Scores Improper Subgrouping Serial Data and Response Trajectories Cluster Analysis As Doug Altman famously wrote in his Scandal of Poor Medical Research in BMJ in 1994, the quality of how statistical principles and analysis methods are applied in medical research is quite poor. According to Doug and to many others such as Richard Smith, the problems have only gotten worse.

Damage Caused by Classification Accuracy and Other Discontinuous Improper Accuracy Scoring Rules

I discussed the many advantages or probability estimation over classification. Here I discuss a particular problem related to classification, namely the harm done by using improper accuracy scoring rules. Accuracy scores are used to drive feature selection, parameter estimation, and for measuring predictive performance on models derived using any optimization algorithm. For this discussion let Y denote a no/yes false/true 0/1 event being predicted, and let Y=0 denote a non-event and Y=1 the event occurred.