BACKGROUND: Discriminatory capabilities of a measurement technique can be assessed by a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis (specifically, area under the curve [AUC]) and predictive modeling (predictive accuracy and positive predictive value). Theoretically, predictive accuracy is dependent on disease prevalence while AUC assessments are not. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of changes in disease prevalence on ROC AUC analysis and predictive modeling. METHODS: For this comparison, a data set with 72 individuals with coronary artery disease (CAD) and 1,857 individuals without CAD was used. A validated CAD score with a demonstrated AUC of 0.80 was applied. Disease prevalence within the study sample was altered by randomly removing non-CAD patients from the original sample. Predictive accuracy and positive predictive value of the CAD score were calculated using 2 x 2 contingency tables. Three threshold values of the CAD score were applied centering on a value for which sensitivity and specificity were equal. RESULTS: For a chosen CAD score threshold value (eg, 60), sensitivity (0.74), specificity (0.75), and AUC (0.81) did not change significantly while positive predictive value increased (10%-70%) as disease prevalence increased from 4% to 44%. Changes in predictive accuracy were dependent on the selected test threshold value. Predictive accuracy increased (54%-68%), did not change (74%-75%), or decreased (88%-70%) with the same increase in disease prevalence for threshold values of 50, 60, and 70, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ROC AUC and predictive accuracy are stable diagnostic characteristics, whereas positive predictive value is greatly influenced by disease prevalence.
BACKGROUND: Discriminatory capabilities of a measurement technique can be assessed by a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis (specifically, area under the curve [AUC]) and predictive modeling (predictive accuracy and positive predictive value). Theoretically, predictive accuracy is dependent on disease prevalence while AUC assessments are not. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of changes in disease prevalence on ROC AUC analysis and predictive modeling. METHODS: For this comparison, a data set with 72 individuals with coronary artery disease (CAD) and 1,857 individuals without CAD was used. A validated CAD score with a demonstrated AUC of 0.80 was applied. Disease prevalence within the study sample was altered by randomly removing non-CAD patients from the original sample. Predictive accuracy and positive predictive value of the CAD score were calculated using 2 x 2 contingency tables. Three threshold values of the CAD score were applied centering on a value for which sensitivity and specificity were equal. RESULTS: For a chosen CAD score threshold value (eg, 60), sensitivity (0.74), specificity (0.75), and AUC (0.81) did not change significantly while positive predictive value increased (10%-70%) as disease prevalence increased from 4% to 44%. Changes in predictive accuracy were dependent on the selected test threshold value. Predictive accuracy increased (54%-68%), did not change (74%-75%), or decreased (88%-70%) with the same increase in disease prevalence for threshold values of 50, 60, and 70, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ROC AUC and predictive accuracy are stable diagnostic characteristics, whereas positive predictive value is greatly influenced by disease prevalence.
Authors: Benjamin A Goldstein; Ann Marie Navar; Michael J Pencina; John P A Ioannidis Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Angharad R Morgan; Samuel Touchard; Claire Leckey; Caroline O'Hagan; Alejo J Nevado-Holgado; Frederik Barkhof; Lars Bertram; Olivier Blin; Isabelle Bos; Valerija Dobricic; Sebastiaan Engelborghs; Giovanni Frisoni; Lutz Frölich; Silvey Gabel; Peter Johannsen; Petronella Kettunen; Iwona Kłoszewska; Cristina Legido-Quigley; Alberto Lleó; Pablo Martinez-Lage; Patrizia Mecocci; Karen Meersmans; José Luis Molinuevo; Gwendoline Peyratout; Julius Popp; Jill Richardson; Isabel Sala; Philip Scheltens; Johannes Streffer; Hikka Soininen; Mikel Tainta-Cuezva; Charlotte Teunissen; Magda Tsolaki; Rik Vandenberghe; Pieter Jelle Visser; Stephanie Vos; Lars-Olof Wahlund; Anders Wallin; Sarah Westwood; Henrik Zetterberg; Simon Lovestone; B Paul Morgan Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Johannes Rueckel; Christian Huemmer; Andreas Fieselmann; Florin-Cristian Ghesu; Awais Mansoor; Balthasar Schachtner; Philipp Wesp; Lena Trappmann; Basel Munawwar; Jens Ricke; Michael Ingrisch; Bastian O Sabel Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-03-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Yang Xiang; Hangyu Ji; Yujia Zhou; Fang Li; Jingcheng Du; Laila Rasmy; Stephen Wu; W Jim Zheng; Hua Xu; Degui Zhi; Yaoyun Zhang; Cui Tao Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 5.428