2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.11.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A discussion of calibration techniques for evaluating binary and categorical predictive models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
45
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 76 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
1
45
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To characterize model calibration and fit, we also calculated the calibration slope and intercept. Calibration slopes differing from one suggest model overfitting to the training data set, while calibration intercepts differing from 0 suggest systematic bias toward under‐ or overpredicting the risk of mortality . Analysis was performed using Stata/IC 14.2 (College Station, TX: StataCorp, LP) and R version 3.4.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) with packages pROC, caret, cvAUC, DMwR, MICE, and rms …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To characterize model calibration and fit, we also calculated the calibration slope and intercept. Calibration slopes differing from one suggest model overfitting to the training data set, while calibration intercepts differing from 0 suggest systematic bias toward under‐ or overpredicting the risk of mortality . Analysis was performed using Stata/IC 14.2 (College Station, TX: StataCorp, LP) and R version 3.4.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) with packages pROC, caret, cvAUC, DMwR, MICE, and rms …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For model discrimination and calibration, the C-statistic was calculated from the receiver-operator characteristic curve to assess model discrimination, where a C-statistic of 0.50 or more indicates acceptable predictive power [37]. Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit tests were applied and the calibration plots were generated for each model to assess model calibration [38].…”
Section: Statistical Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We referred to the values of (1) calibration-in-the-large-comparison of the average of all predicted probabilities with the average observed depression cases in the Nepali dataset, with values closer to zero indicating better model performance; and (2) calibration slope-measure of agreement between observed depression and predicted risk of depression for all predictors in the Nepali dataset (a perfect model has a calibration slope of 1; [53]). A Chi-square test to measure unreliability of the calibration accuracy was performed to assess whether there was a statistically significant difference between the model predictions and the 45° line [53]. We assessed discrimination using the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve.…”
Section: Evaluation Of Model Performancementioning
confidence: 99%