Literature DB >> 27884464

Estimating the Area Under ROC Curve When the Fitted Binormal Curves Demonstrate Improper Shape.

Andriy I Bandos1, Ben Guo2, David Gur3.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: The "binormal" model is the most frequently used tool for parametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The binormal ROC curves can have "improper" (non-concave) shapes that are unrealistic in many practical applications, and several tools (eg, PROPROC) have been developed to address this problem. However, due to the general robustness of binormal ROCs, the improperness of the fitted curves might carry little consequence for inferences about global summary indices, such as the area under the ROC curve (AUC). In this work, we investigate the effect of severe improperness of fitted binormal ROC curves on the reliability of AUC estimates when the data arise from an actually proper curve.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed theoretically proper ROC scenarios that induce severely improper shape of fitted binormal curves in the presence of well-distributed empirical ROC points. The binormal curves were fitted using maximum likelihood approach. Using simulations, we estimated the frequency of severely improper fitted curves, bias of the estimated AUC, and coverage of 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In Appendix S1, we provide additional information on percentiles of the distribution of AUC estimates and bias when estimating partial AUCs. We also compared the results to a reference standard provided by empirical estimates obtained from continuous data.
RESULTS: We observed up to 96% of severely improper curves depending on the scenario in question. The bias in the binormal AUC estimates was very small and the coverage of the CIs was close to nominal, whereas the estimates of partial AUC were biased upward in the high specificity range and downward in the low specificity range. Compared to a non-parametric approach, the binormal model led to slightly more variable AUC estimates, but at the same time to CIs with more appropriate coverage.
CONCLUSIONS: The improper shape of the fitted binormal curve, by itself, ie, in the presence of a sufficient number of well-distributed points, does not imply unreliable AUC-based inferences.
Copyright © 2017 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AUC estimation; Binormal ROC; PROPROC; improper shape; statistical properties

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27884464      PMCID: PMC5237396          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2016.09.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  17 in total

1.  Effects of luminance and resolution on observer performance with chest radiographs.

Authors:  J M Herron; T M Bender; W L Campbell; J H Sumkin; H E Rockette; D Gur
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Analyzing a portion of the ROC curve.

Authors:  D K McClish
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1989 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Confidence intervals for the receiver operating characteristic area in studies with small samples.

Authors:  N A Obuchowski; M L Lieber
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Proper receiver operating characteristic analysis: the bigamma model.

Authors:  D D Dorfman; K S Berbaum; C E Metz; R V Lenth; J A Hanley; H Abu Dagga
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Sample size determination for diagnostic accuracy studies involving binormal ROC curve indices.

Authors:  N A Obuchowski; D K McClish
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1997-07-15       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Limitations to the robustness of binormal ROC curves: effects of model misspecification and location of decision thresholds on bias, precision, size and power.

Authors:  S J Walsh
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1997-03-30       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  A parametric ROC model-based approach for evaluating the predictiveness of continuous markers in case-control studies.

Authors:  Y Huang; M S Pepe
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  On use of partial area under the ROC curve for evaluation of diagnostic performance.

Authors:  Hua Ma; Andriy I Bandos; Howard E Rockette; David Gur
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-03-18       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Equivalence of binormal likelihood-ratio and bi-chi-squared ROC curve models.

Authors:  Stephen L Hillis
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  5 in total

1.  [Application of two noninvasive scores in predicting the risk of respiratory failure in full-term neonates: a comparative analysis].

Authors:  Yan-Hong Zhao; Ya-Juan Liu; Xiao-Li Zhao; Wei-Chao Chen; Yi-Xian Zhou
Journal:  Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2022-04-15

2.  A note on modeling placement values in the analysis of receiver operating characteristic curves.

Authors:  Zhen Chen; Soutik Ghosal
Journal:  Biostat Epidemiol       Date:  2020-03-22

3.  A unified Bayesian framework for exact inference of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

Authors:  Ruitao Lin; Kc Gary Chan; Haolun Shi
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2021-09-01       Impact factor: 2.494

4.  Reliability and validity of the translated Chinese version of Autism Spectrum Rating Scale (2-5 years).

Authors:  Hao Zhou; Chun-Pei Li; Yi Huang; Xiao-Bing Zou; Xue-Rong Luo; Li-Jie Wu; Lan Zhang; Xiu Xu; Wei-Li Yan; Yi Wang
Journal:  World J Pediatr       Date:  2018-11-16       Impact factor: 2.764

5.  Metrics for Evaluating Polygenic Risk Scores.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker
Journal:  JNCI Cancer Spectr       Date:  2020-12-23
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.