Literature DB >> 17375868

What's under the ROC? An introduction to receiver operating characteristics curves.

David L Streiner1, John Cairney.   

Abstract

It is often necessary to dichotomize a continuous scale to separate respondents into normal and abnormal groups. However, because the distributions of the scores in these 2 groups most often overlap, any cut point that is chosen will result in 2 types of errors: false negatives (that is, abnormal cases judged to be normal) and false positives (that is, normal cases placed in the abnormal group). Changing the cut point will alter the numbers of erroneous judgments but will not eliminate the problem. A technique called receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves allows us to determine the ability ofa test to discriminate between groups, to choose the optimal cut point, and to compare the performance of 2 or more tests. We discuss how to calculate and compareROC curves and the factors that must be considered in choosing an optimal cut point.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17375868     DOI: 10.1177/070674370705200210

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Psychiatry        ISSN: 0706-7437            Impact factor:   4.356


  106 in total

1.  National trends in mental health disability, 1997-2009.

Authors:  Ramin Mojtabai
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2011-09-22       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Mapping plant interactomes using literature curated and predicted protein-protein interaction data sets.

Authors:  KiYoung Lee; David Thorneycroft; Premanand Achuthan; Henning Hermjakob; Trey Ideker
Journal:  Plant Cell       Date:  2010-04-06       Impact factor: 11.277

3.  Validity of the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18) for identifying depression and anxiety in young adult cancer survivors: Comparison with a Structured Clinical Diagnostic Interview.

Authors:  Christopher J Recklitis; Jaime E Blackmon; Grace Chang
Journal:  Psychol Assess       Date:  2017-01-12

4.  Testing definitions of symptom remission in first-episode psychosis for prediction of functional outcome at 2 years.

Authors:  Clifford M Cassidy; Ross Norman; Rahul Manchanda; Norbert Schmitz; Ashok Malla
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2009-03-25       Impact factor: 9.306

5.  Binary outcomes are not better than continuous variables in randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Jan Kottner; David L Streiner
Journal:  J Invest Dermatol       Date:  2013-06-11       Impact factor: 8.551

6.  Predicting older driver on-road performance by means of the useful field of view and trail making test part B.

Authors:  Sherrilene Classen; Yanning Wang; Alexander M Crizzle; Sandra M Winter; Desiree N Lanford
Journal:  Am J Occup Ther       Date:  2013 Sep-Oct

7.  Reliability, Validity, and Clinical Utility of the Dominic Interactive for Adolescents-RevisedA DSM-5-Based Self-Report Screen for Mental Disorders, Borderline Personality Traits, and Suicidality.

Authors:  Lise Bergeron; Nicole Smolla; Claude Berthiaume; Johanne Renaud; Jean-Jacques Breton; Marie St-Georges; Pauline Morin; Elissa Zavaglia; Réal Labelle
Journal:  Can J Psychiatry       Date:  2016-09-24       Impact factor: 4.356

8. 

Authors:  Paulo V M Steagall; Beatriz P Monteiro; Anne-Marie Lavoie; Diane Frank; Eric Troncy; Stelio P L Luna; Juliana T Brondani
Journal:  Can Vet J       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.008

9.  An Entropy-Based Measure for Assessing Fuzziness in Logistic Regression.

Authors:  Brandi A Weiss; William Dardick
Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas       Date:  2015-12-31       Impact factor: 2.821

10.  The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index.

Authors:  A F Mannion; F Porchet; F S Kleinstück; F Lattig; D Jeszenszky; V Bartanusz; J Dvorak; D Grob
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-03-19       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.