title: RiGoR: reporting guidelines to address common sources of bias in risk model development.
abstract: Reviewing the literature in many fields on proposed risk models reveals problems with the way many risk models are developed. Furthermore, papers reporting new risk models do not always provide sufficient information to allow readers to assess the merits of the model. In this review, we discuss sources of bias that can arise in risk model development. We focus on two biases that can be introduced during data analysis. These two sources of bias are sometimes conflated in the literature and we recommend the terms resubstitution bias and model-selection bias to delineate them. We also propose the RiGoR reporting standard to improve transparency and clarity of published papers proposing new risk models.
authors: Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Box 357232, Seattle, WA 98195 USA.
authors: Kathleen F
authors: KF
authors: Kerr
authors: Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Box 357232, Seattle, WA 98195 USA.
authors: Allison
authors: A
authors: Meisner
authors: Kidney Clinical Research Unit Room ELL-101, Westminster Tower London Health Sciences Centre, 800 Commissioners Road East, London, ON N6C 6B5 Canada.
authors: Heather
authors: H
authors: Thiessen-Philbrook
authors: Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1243, New York, NY 10029 USA.
authors: Steven G
authors: SG
authors: Coca
authors: Yale University School of Medicine Program of Applied Translational Research, Temple Street, Suite 6C, New Haven, CT 06510 USA.
authors: Chirag R
authors: CR
authors: Parikh
keywords: Reporting standards; Research design; Risk prediction; Statistical bias
references: Br J Cancer. 2003 Nov 3;89(9):1599-604
references: 14583755
references: Med Phys. 2010 Feb;37(2):907-20
references: 20229900
references: Bioinformatics. 2014 Nov 15;30(22):3152-8
references: 25086004
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 1968 Sep;41(3):665-81
references: 5677315
references: BMJ. 2012 May 24;344:e3318
references: 22628003
references: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014 Aug 7;9(8):1488-96
references: 24855282
references: BMC Bioinformatics. 2006 Feb 23;7:91
references: 16504092
references: Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2005 Aug;2(8):416-22
references: 16130938
references: Bioinformatics. 2005 Aug 1;21(15):3301-7
references: 15905277
references: Epidemiology. 2010 Jan;21(1):128-38
references: 20010215
references: Ann Intern Med. 1993 Feb 1;118(3):201-10
references: 8417638
references: Ann Intern Med. 2003 Jan 7;138(1):40-4
references: 12513043
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Jul 20;97(14):1043-55
references: 16030302
references: JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10 ):1385-9
references: 2406472
references: PLoS Med. 2011 Mar;8(3):e1000420
references: 21423587
references: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007 Mar;16(3):241-9
references: 17252614
references: J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Mar;66(3):268-77
references: 23116690
references: J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jul 15;22(14):2790-9
references: 15254046
references: Psychol Rep. 1995 Aug;77(1):143-6
references: 7501753
references: Contemp Clin Trials. 2013 Nov;36(2):636-41
references: 23811117
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Feb 7;99(3):236-43
references: 17284718
references: Bioinformatics. 2006 May 15;22(10):1245-50
references: 16500931
references: Bioinformatics. 2010 Mar 15;26(6):822-30
references: 20130029
references: Laryngoscope. 2005 Mar;115(3):522-7
references: 15744170
references: Bioinformatics. 2004 Jan 22;20(2):253-8
references: 14734317
references: Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 May;133(1):1-10
references: 22076477
references: BMC Med Genomics. 2011 Apr 08;4:31
references: 21477282
references: Am J Epidemiol. 2014 Aug 1;180(3):318-24
references: 24966219
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Jan 17;99(2):147-57
references: 17227998