Despite notable improvements in risk quantification and management, cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity. A substantial proportion of CVD events is experienced by individuals below treatment thresholds established based on standard risk factors. This motivates researchers to look for new risk factors or markers that could further improve risk prediction.
The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) has been the most commonly used measure of performance for predictive models. It quantifies discrimination, defined as the ability of the model to separate subjects who will experience the event (“events”) from those who will not (“nonevents”), or in the time-to-event context, to rank them according to their event times based on the predicted probabilities of event calculated at baseline. Notwithstanding the fact that the AUC remains a key measure of model performance, it is becoming more apparent that it may not be the most informative quantifier of the added usefulness of a new risk factor. Once the AUC reaches a reasonable level (say, 0.70), extremely large effect sizes are needed to raise it even by a small amount. Besides, the interpretation of this raise is not very intuitive.
Register and get free email Table of Contents alerts, saved searches, PowerPoint downloads, CME quizzes, and more
Subscribe for full-text access to content from 1998 forward and a host of useful features
Activate your current subscription (AMA members and current subscribers)
Purchase Online Access to this article for 24 hours
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. It will be reviewed by JAMA Internal Medicine editors. You will be notified when your comment has been published. Comments should not exceed 500 words of text and 10 references.
Do not submit personal medical questions or information that could identify a specific patient, questions about a particular case, or general inquiries to an author. Only content that has not been published, posted, or submitted elsewhere should be submitted. By submitting this Comment, you and any coauthors transfer copyright to the journal if your Comment is posted.
* = Required Field
Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest*
Indicate all relevant conflicts of interest of each author below, including all relevant financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including, but not limited to, employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speakers’ bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued. If all authors have none, check "No potential conflicts or relevant financial interests" in the box below. Please also indicate any funding received in support of this work. The information will be posted with your response.
Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.
Download citation file:
Web of Science® Times Cited: 3
Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.
More Listings atJAMACareerCenter.com >
The Rational Clinical Examination
Make the Diagnosis: Cancer, Family History
The Rational Clinical Examination
Original Article: Does This Patient Have a Family History of Cancer?
All results at
and access these and other features:
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a link to reset your password.
Enter your username and email address. We'll send instructions on how to reset your password to the email address we have on record.
Athens and Shibboleth are access management services that provide single sign-on to protected resources. They replace the multiple user names and passwords necessary to access subscription-based content with a single user name and password that can be entered once per session. It operates independently of a user's location or IP address. If your institution uses Athens or Shibboleth authentication, please contact your site administrator to receive your user name and password.