Decision curve analysis explained
-
Javier Arredondo Montero
Abstract
Decision curve analysis (DCA) bridges the gap between statistical accuracy and clinical usefulness – a distinction frequently overlooked in diagnostic research. Using a simulated cohort representing a real-world diagnostic scenario, this tutorial demonstrates how predictors with similar ROC-based performance can yield markedly different net benefit profiles when evaluated through DCA. Three tools were compared: a strong predictor (composite clinical score), a moderate biomarker (leukocytes), and a weak marker with modest AUC but limited practical value (serum sodium). Whereas ROC curves portray discrimination alone, decision curves situate performance within real clinical trade-offs, making explicit when a model adds value beyond default strategies such as treating all or none. The tutorial provides a step-by-step framework for interpretation, clarifies frequent misconceptions (thresholds, prevalence effects, calibration), and illustrates how DCA incorporates the consequences of decisions rather than just their statistical accuracy. Rather than adding ‘just another metric’, DCA reframes evaluation around a practical question: does using this model improve decisions across clinically reasonable thresholds?
-
Research ethics: Not applicable.
-
Informed consent: Not applicable.
-
Author contributions: Javier Arredondo Montero (JAM): Conceptualization; Methodology; Software; Validation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Resources; Data Curation; Writing – Original Draft; Writing – Review & Editing; Visualization; Supervision; Project administration.
-
Use of Large Language Models, AI and Machine Learning Tools: Artificial intelligence (ChatGPT 4, OpenAI) was used for language editing and for generating a simulated dataset under the author’s explicit instructions. It did not influence the scientific content, analysis, or interpretation.
-
Conflict of interest: The author states no conflict of interest.
-
Research funding: None declared.
-
Data availability: The dataset used in this study is simulated and has been provided as supplementary material (Supplementary File 1).
References
1. Vickers, AJ, Elkin, EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Mak 2006;26:565–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X06295361.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
2. Vickers, AJ, Van Calster, B, Steyerberg, EW. Net benefit approaches to the evaluation of prediction models, molecular markers, and diagnostic tests. Br Med J 2016;352:i6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
3. Bhatt, M, Joseph, L, Ducharme, FM, Dougherty, G, McGillivray, D. Prospective validation of the pediatric appendicitis score in a Canadian pediatric emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2009;16:591–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00445.x.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Kottakis, G, Bekiaridou, K, Roupakias, S, Pavlides, O, Gogoulis, I, Kosteletos, S, et al.. The role of hyponatremia in identifying complicated cases of acute appendicitis in the pediatric population. Diagnostics 2025;15:1384. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15111384.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
5. Duman, L, Karaibrahimoğlu, A, Büyükyavuz, Bİ, Savaş, MÇ. Diagnostic value of monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio against other biomarkers in children with appendicitis. Pediatr Emerg Care 2022;38:e739–42. https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0000000000002347.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Vickers, AJ, Cronin, AM, Elkin, EB, Gonen, M. Extensions to decision curve analysis, a novel method for evaluating diagnostic tests, prediction models and molecular markers. BMC Med Inf Decis Making 2008;8:53. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-8-53.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
7. Van Calster, B, Wynants, L, Verbeek, JFM, Verbakel, JY, Christodoulou, E, Vickers, AJ, et al.. Reporting and interpreting decision curve analysis: a guide for investigators. Eur Urol 2018;74:796–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.038.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
8. Kerr, KF, Brown, MD, Zhu, K, Janes, H. Assessing the clinical impact of risk prediction models with decision curves: guidance for correct interpretation and appropriate use. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:2534–40. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.65.5654.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
9. Steyerberg, EW, Vickers, AJ, Cook, NR, Gerds, T, Gonen, M, Obuchowski, N, et al.. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology 2010;21:128–38. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c30fb2.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
10. Steyerberg, EW. Clinical prediction models: a practical approach to development, validation, and updating, 2nd ed. Switzerland: Springer Nature; 2019. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-16399-0.Search in Google Scholar
Supplementary Material
This article contains supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2025-0113).
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
