Literature DB >> 22415937

Misuse of DeLong test to compare AUCs for nested models.

Olga V Demler1, Michael J Pencina, Ralph B D'Agostino.   

Abstract

The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC of ROC) is a widely used measure of discrimination in risk prediction models. Routinely, the Mann-Whitney statistics is used as an estimator of AUC, while the change in AUC is tested by the DeLong test. However, very often, in settings where the model is developed and tested on the same dataset, the added predictor is statistically significantly associated with the outcome but fails to produce a significant improvement in the AUC. No conclusive resolution exists to explain this finding. In this paper, we will show that the reason lies in the inappropriate application of the DeLong test in the setting of nested models. Using numerical simulations and a theoretical argument based on generalized U-statistics, we show that if the added predictor is not statistically significantly associated with the outcome, the null distribution is non-normal, contrary to the assumption of DeLong test. Our simulations of different scenarios show that the loss of power because of such a misuse of the DeLong test leads to a conservative test for small and moderate effect sizes. This problem does not exist in cases of predictors that are associated with the outcome and for non-nested models. We suggest that for nested models, only the test of association be performed for the new predictors, and if the result is significant, change in AUC be estimated with an appropriate confidence interval, which can be based on the DeLong approach.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22415937      PMCID: PMC3684152          DOI: 10.1002/sim.5328

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  16 in total

1.  Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis.

Authors:  E W Steyerberg; F E Harrell; G J Borsboom; M J Eijkemans; Y Vergouwe; J D Habbema
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Executive Summary of The Third Report of The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, And Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol In Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III).

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-05-16       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Equivalence of improvement in area under ROC curve and linear discriminant analysis coefficient under assumption of normality.

Authors:  Olga V Demler; Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-02-21       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach.

Authors:  E R DeLong; D M DeLong; D L Clarke-Pearson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Coronary artery calcium score and risk classification for coronary heart disease prediction.

Authors:  Tamar S Polonsky; Robyn L McClelland; Neal W Jorgensen; Diane E Bild; Gregory L Burke; Alan D Guerci; Philip Greenland
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-04-28       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Comparison of C-reactive protein and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in the prediction of first cardiovascular events.

Authors:  Paul M Ridker; Nader Rifai; Lynda Rose; Julie E Buring; Nancy R Cook
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-11-14       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study.

Authors:  Ralph B D'Agostino; Ramachandran S Vasan; Michael J Pencina; Philip A Wolf; Mark Cobain; Joseph M Massaro; William B Kannel
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 29.690

8.  Cardiovascular disease risk profiles.

Authors:  K M Anderson; P M Odell; P W Wilson; W B Kannel
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 4.749

9.  Genotype score in addition to common risk factors for prediction of type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  James B Meigs; Peter Shrader; Lisa M Sullivan; Jarred B McAteer; Caroline S Fox; Josée Dupuis; Alisa K Manning; Jose C Florez; Peter W F Wilson; Ralph B D'Agostino; L Adrienne Cupples
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-11-20       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  One statistical test is sufficient for assessing new predictive markers.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin; Colin B Begg
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  80 in total

1.  Comparing two correlated C indices with right-censored survival outcome: a one-shot nonparametric approach.

Authors:  Le Kang; Weijie Chen; Nicholas A Petrick; Brandon D Gallas
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-11-17       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Application of net reclassification index to non-nested and point-based risk prediction models: a review.

Authors:  Laine E Thomas; Emily C O'Brien; Jonathan P Piccini; Ralph B D'Agostino; Michael J Pencina
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2019-06-14       Impact factor: 29.983

3.  Assessment of Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness by Use of the Combination of Quantitative DWI and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Andreas M Hötker; Yousef Mazaheri; Ömer Aras; Junting Zheng; Chaya S Moskowitz; Tatsuo Gondo; Kazuhiro Matsumoto; Hedvig Hricak; Oguz Akin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-02-22       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Identification of prognostic factors and construction of a nomogram for patients with relapse/refractory adult-onset Still's disease.

Authors:  Ruxue Yin; Gangjian Wang; Xiaopei Yang; Lei Zhang; Shuolin Wang; Tianfang Li; Shengyun Liu
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 2.980

5.  Concordance measure and discriminatory accuracy in transformation cure models.

Authors:  Yilong Zhang; Yongzhao Shao
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 5.899

6.  Assessing improvement in disease prediction using net reclassification improvement: impact of risk cut-offs and number of risk categories.

Authors:  Kristin Mühlenbruch; Alexandros Heraclides; Ewout W Steyerberg; Hans-Georg Joost; Heiner Boeing; Matthias B Schulze
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 8.082

7.  Net reclassification improvement: a link between statistics and clinical practice.

Authors:  Maarten J G Leening; Nancy R Cook
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2013-01-05       Impact factor: 8.082

8.  A unified inference procedure for a class of measures to assess improvement in risk prediction systems with survival data.

Authors:  Hajime Uno; Lu Tian; Tianxi Cai; Isaac S Kohane; L J Wei
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-10-05       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Understanding increments in model performance metrics.

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Joseph M Massaro
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2012-12-16       Impact factor: 1.588

10.  An additive selection of markers to improve diagnostic accuracy based on a discriminatory measure.

Authors:  Liansheng Larry Tang; Le Kang; Chunling Liu; Enrique F Schisterman; Aiyi Liu
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-04-20       Impact factor: 3.173

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.