↓ Skip to main content

Validation of death prediction after breast cancer relapses using joint models

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validation of death prediction after breast cancer relapses using joint models
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0018-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Audrey Mauguen, Bernard Rachet, Simone Mathoulin-Pélissier, Gill M Lawrence, Sabine Siesling, Gaëtan MacGrogan, Alexandre Laurent, Virginie Rondeau

Abstract

Cancer relapses may be useful to predict the risk of death. To take into account relapse information, the Landmark approach is popular. As an alternative, we propose the joint frailty model for a recurrent event and a terminal event to derive dynamic predictions of the risk of death. The proposed prediction settings can account for relapse history or not. In this work, predictions developed on a French hospital series of patients with breast cancer are externally validated on UK and Netherlands registry data. The performances in terms of prediction error and calibration are compared to those from a Landmark Cox model. The error of prediction was reduced when relapse information was taken into account. The prediction was well-calibrated, although it was developed and validated on very different populations. Joint modelling and Landmark approaches had similar performances. When predicting the risk of death, accounting for relapses led to better prediction performance. Joint modelling appeared to be suitable for such prediction. Performance was similar to the landmark Cox model, while directly quantifying the correlation between relapses and death.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 18%
Student > Master 4 14%
Lecturer 1 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 32%
Mathematics 7 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 5 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 April 2015.
All research outputs
#15,023,993
of 23,306,612 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,472
of 2,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,602
of 265,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#15
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,306,612 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,054 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,693 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.