Bookmark and Share

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]

st: Comparing risk scores


From   K Jensen <k.x.jensen@gmail.com>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   st: Comparing risk scores
Date   Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:11:26 +0100

Maybe this is more of a stats question than a Stata one, but there are
such a lot of good brains here...

We are constructing point scores to indicate severity of risk  Death
is the outcome. What is the best way of measuring the usefulness of
the score?  The aim is to show a good gradient of risk.  Say the
results for two different scores were:

Score  Dead  Alive    %dead    Totals
0        12    136      9.9%      145
1        18    126     15.4%      144
2        18     62     26.2%       81
3        10      9     57.1%       20
4         2      0    100  %        3
-------------------------------------
Total:   60    333                393

Score  Dead  Alive    %dead    Totals
0         8    174      4.6%      182
1        21    143     12.8%      164
2        22     19     53.7%       41
3         5      1     83.3%        6
-------------------------------------
TOTAL:   60    333                393

Which is the better score?  What is the best way to measure its
predictive power?  I understand that ROC type analysis doesn't really
apply here.  Some measure of R-squared?  AIC?

Thankyou

Karin

PS) I have made up the data, so the numbers don't quite add up.  It is
meant to be two different, competing scores on the same people.
*
*   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/


© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index