Literature DB >> 8994156

A comparison of parametric and nonparametric approaches to ROC analysis of quantitative diagnostic tests.

K O Hajian-Tilaki1, J A Hanley, L Joseph, J P Collet.   

Abstract

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, which yields indices of accuracy such as the area under the curve (AUC), is increasingly being used to evaluate the performances of diagnostic tests that produce results on continuous scales. Both parametric and nonparametric ROC approaches are available to assess the discriminant capacity of such tests, but there are no clear guidelines as to the merits of each, particularly with non-binormal data. Investigators may worry that when data are non-Gaussian, estimates of diagnostic accuracy based on a binormal model may be distorted. The authors conducted a Monte Carlo simulation study to compare the bias and sampling variability in the estimates of the AUCs derived from parametric and nonparametric procedures. Each approach was assessed in data sets generated from various configurations of pairs of overlapping distributions; these included the binormal model and non-binormal pairs of distributions where one or both pair members were mixtures of Gaussian (MG) distributions with different degrees of departures from binormality. The biases in the estimates of the AUCs were found to be very small for both parametric and nonparametric procedures. The two approaches yielded very close estimates of the AUCs and the corresponding sampling variability even when data were generated from non-binormal models. Thus, for a wide range of distributions, concern about bias or imprecision of the estimates of the AUC should not be a major factor in choosing between the nonparametric and parametric approaches.

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 8994156     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9701700111

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  21 in total

Review 1.  ROC analysis in medical imaging: a tutorial review of the literature.

Authors:  Charles E Metz
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2007-10-27

Review 2.  Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve Analysis for Medical Diagnostic Test Evaluation.

Authors:  Karimollah Hajian-Tilaki
Journal:  Caspian J Intern Med       Date:  2013

3.  Classifier performance prediction for computer-aided diagnosis using a limited dataset.

Authors:  Berkman Sahiner; Heang-Ping Chan; Lubomir Hadjiiski
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Evaluation of Urine Aquaporin-1 and Perilipin-2 Concentrations as Biomarkers to Screen for Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Jeremiah J Morrissey; Vincent M Mellnick; Jingqin Luo; Marilyn J Siegel; R Sherburne Figenshau; Sam Bhayani; Evan D Kharasch
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 31.777

Review 5.  Sample size estimation in epidemiologic studies.

Authors:  Karimollah Hajian-Tilaki
Journal:  Caspian J Intern Med       Date:  2011

Review 6.  Evidence-based statistical analysis and methods in biomedical research (SAMBR) checklists according to design features.

Authors:  Alok Kumar Dwivedi; Rakesh Shukla
Journal:  Cancer Rep (Hoboken)       Date:  2019-08-22

7.  Using the mean-to-sigma ratio as a measure of the improperness of binormal ROC curves.

Authors:  Stephen L Hillis; Kevin S Berbaum
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.173

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

Authors:  Andriy I Bandos; Ben Guo; David Gur
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2016-11-21       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  Further validation of a measure of injury-related injustice perceptions to identify risk for occupational disability: a prospective study of individuals with whiplash injury.

Authors:  Whitney Scott; Zina Trost; Maria Milioto; Michael J L Sullivan
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2013-12

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

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.