Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 21, 2025

Cutoff Value of Phase Angle by Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis at Admission as a Prognostic Factor in Patients with Acute Heart Failure
Published on: June 10, 2025
The anchor-based minimal important change, based on receiver operating characteristic analysis or predictive
Berend Terluin1, Iris Eekhout2, Caroline B Terwee3
1Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, Amsterdam 1081 BT, The Netherlands.
Objectives:
Patients have their individual minimal important changes (iMICs) as their personal benchmarks to determine whether a perceived health-related quality of life (HRQOL) change constitutes a (minimally) important change for them. We denote the mean iMIC in a group of patients as the "genuine MIC" (gMIC). The aims of this paper are (1) to examine the relationship between the gMIC and the anchor-based minimal important change (MIC), determined by receiver operating characteristic analysis or by predictive modeling; (2) to examine the impact of the proportion of improved patients on these MICs; and (3) to explore the possibility to adjust the MIC for the influence of the proportion of improved patients.
Study Design And Setting:
Multiple simulations of patient samples involved in anchor-based MIC studies with different characteristics of HRQOL (change) scores and distributions of iMICs. In addition, a real data set is analyzed for illustration.
Results:
The receiver operating characteristic-based and predictive modeling MICs equal the gMIC when the proportion of improved patients equals 0.5. The MIC is estimated higher than the gMIC when the proportion improved is greater than 0.5, and the MIC is estimated lower than the gMIC when the proportion improved is less than 0.5. Using an equation including the predictive modeling MIC, the log-odds of improvement, the standard deviation of the HRQOL change score, and the correlation between the HRQOL change score and the anchor results in an adjusted MIC reflecting the gMIC irrespective of the proportion of improved patients.
Conclusion:
Adjusting the predictive modeling MIC for the proportion of improved patients assures that the adjusted MIC reflects the gMIC.
Limitations:
We assumed normal distributions and global perceived change scores that were independent on the follow-up score. Additionally, floor and ceiling effects were not taken into account.
More Related Videos
07:13Comparison of Predictive Performance of Three Lymph Node Staging Systems in Colorectal Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma Based on Machine Learning Model
Published on: April 18, 2025
07:15Machine Learning Algorithms for Early Detection of Bone Metastases in an Experimental Rat Model
Published on: August 16, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Regression Toward the Mean
Receiver Operating Characteristic Plot
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predicted Value
Sensitivity is the...