Cholesterol Risk Calculator Debacle – ctd.

Longtime reader of the blog writes (slightly edited):

The author of the comment cites calibration as the problem–different data set from which rule derived, etc.

However, he uses the case of smoker and non-smoker (5x risk) and downplays the impact of above and all the attention the “flawed” model received.  At least I think that’s what he’s saying.

Therefore, and my question: is he saying discrimination works within model, but it’s poorly calibrated?

To which our other reader responds:

That’s right. The entire argument was that the new score (which was made from 4 large cohort studies) calibrated poorly to 3 large RCTs. Yesterday it was impossible to know because the NYTimes article was referring to a Lancet article that was just now e-published. (How’d that happen? Isn’t this what embargo rules are about?). Previous studies (cf D’agostino JAMA 2001) have also found this – poor calibration between datasets, good discrimination. There’s no “error,” just complicated findings.

I find this discussion fascinating, but I admit I’m an observer here, not an expert. On the other hand, why doesn’t the NYT have this debate?


Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on linkedin
Share on reddit
Share on email

Hidden information below


* indicates required
Email Format