Notice: On March 31, it was **announced** that Statalist is moving from an email list to a **forum**. The old list will shut down on April 23, and its replacement, **statalist.org** is already up and running.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: Simplification of formula in logistic regression |

Date |
Sun, 15 May 2011 17:48:41 +0100 |

Sorry, but I think you will continue find this "correct way" to be elusive. Nick On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Mikkel Brabrand <mikkel@brabrand.net> wrote: > If I want clinicians to use my model, it needs to be simple. I cannot expect them to use a piece of software to calculate the risk score and it is virtually impossible to have it incorporated in the programs used at my department. I therefore need to simplify it and make the variables categorized or dichotomous. I have previously used the trial and error way, and come up with a model that seems reasonable (and tested it in an independent cohort, and am now testing it in two external cohorts at other hospitals). However, there must be a correct way to select the cuf-off levels, I just cannot find out how. I have asked most statisticians I have met on my way, but no one seems to know how. I hoped that some of you might have a suggestion... > > Mikkel > > Den 15/05/2011 kl. 16.49 skrev Nick Cox: > >> I don't know what "statistically correct" would mean here. If you >> think your model is useful, there are no grounds for coarsening it. If >> the implication is that clinicians can't understand or don't need to >> understand the internals of the formula you can think of encapsulating >> the details in a Stata do-file or some equivalent in other software. >> >> A broad issue is that detailed models optimised to fit particular >> datasets often perform poorly on other data. >> >> Nick >> >> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Mikkel Brabrand <mikkel@brabrand.net> wrote: >> >>> I have performed a logistic regression analysis including five variables and one outcome. However, I would like to simplify the formula significantly for clinical use. So, instead of the formula been something like -12.22+2.33*systolic blood pressure-1.21*temperature etc., I would like to make a scoring system where the score is calculated on basis of the measured values of the vital signs. >>> >>> An example could be something like this >>> >>> .................2 points..1 point...0 points...1 point.....2 points >>> >>> Pulse ...........-30........31-50....51-100....101-200..201- >>> >>> Sys. BP.........-60........61-100..101-200...201- >>> >>> However, I have no idea how to find the optimal cut-off points. Do any of you have a suggestion how to do this statistically correct? >> >> * * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**Follow-Ups**:**RE: st: Simplification of formula in logistic regression***From:*"David Radwin" <dradwin@mprinc.com>

**Re: st: Simplification of formula in logistic regression***From:*Maarten Buis <maartenlbuis@gmail.com>

**References**:**st: Simplification of formula in logistic regression***From:*Mikkel Brabrand <mikkel@brabrand.net>

**Re: st: Simplification of formula in logistic regression***From:*Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com>

**Re: st: Simplification of formula in logistic regression***From:*Mikkel Brabrand <mikkel@brabrand.net>

- Prev by Date:
**st: using svyset for National Sample Survey data (India)** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: RE: Question about Hausman test results: V_b - V_B not positive definite** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Simplification of formula in logistic regression** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: Simplification of formula in logistic regression** - Index(es):