A permutation test sensitive to differences in areas for comparing ROC curves from a paired design

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 24, Issue 18, 2005, Pages 2873-2893

  Bandos, Andriy I ^a   Rockette, Howard E ^a   Gur, David ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Non parametric procedure; Paired design; Permutation test; Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; RATING SCALE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SAMPLE SIZE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

BIOMETRY; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES; HUMANS; RADIOGRAPHY, THORACIC; ROC CURVE; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 25444498871     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.2149     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Metz CE. ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Investigative Radiology 1986; 21(9):720-733.
2. Hanley JA. The robustness of the 'binormal' assumption used in fitting ROC curves. Medical Decision Making 1988; 8(3):197-203.
3. Campbell G. Advances in statistical methodology for the evaluation of diagnostic and laboratory tests. Statistics in Medicine 1994; 13:499-508.
4. Zhou XH, Obuchowski NA, McClish DK. Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine. Wiley: New York, 2002.
5. Greenhouse SW, Mantel N. The evaluation of diagnostic tests. Biometrics 1950; 6(4):399-412.
6. Hilden J. The area under the ROC curve and its competitors. Medical Decision Making 1991; 11:95-101.
7. Lee WC, Hsiao CK. Alternative summary indices for the receiver operating characteristic curve. Epidemiology 1996; 7:605-611.
8. Dorfman DD, Alf Jr E. Maximum likelihood estimation of parameters of signal detection theory and determination of confidence intervals - rating-method data. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1969; 6: 487-496.
9. Metz CE. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine 1978; 8(4):283-298.
10. Swets JA, Picket RM. Evaluation of Diagnostic Systems: Methods from Signal Detection Theory. Academic Press: New York, 1982.
11. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982; 143:29-36.
12. Bamber D. The area above the ordinal dominance graph and the area below the receiver operating characteristic graph. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1975; 12:387-415.
13. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the area under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988; 44(3):837-845.
14. Wagner R-F, Beiden SV, Campbell G, Metz CE, Sacks WM. Assessment of medical imaging and computer-assist systems: lessons from recent experience. Academic Radiology 2002; 9(11):1264-1277.
15. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the area under two ROC curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983; 148:839-843.
16. Metz CE, Wang P-L, Kronman HB. A new approach for testing the significance of differences between ROC curves measured from correlated data. In Information Processing in Medical Imaging VIII, Deconick F (ed.). The Hangue: Martinus Nijhof, 1984; 432-445.
17. Arvesen JN. Jackknifing U-statistics. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1969; 40(6):2076-2100.
18. Bandos AI, Rockette HE, Gur D. Small sample size properties of the non-parametric comparison of the area under two ROC curves. In Medical Image Perception Society Conference X: Proceedings CD, Samei E, Lo JY (eds). Durham, NC, 2003.
19. Venkatraman ES, Begg CB. A distribution-free procedure for comparing receiver operating characteristic curves from a paired experiment. Biometrika 1996; 83(4):835-848.
20. Hoeffding W. A class of statistics with asymptotically normal distribution. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1948; 19(3):293-325.
21. Rockette HE, Campbell WL, Britton CA, Holbert JM, King JL, Gur D. Empiric assessment of parameters that affect the design of multireader receiver operating characteristic studies. Academic Radiology 1999; 6:723-729.
22. Venkatraman ES. A permutation test to compare receiver operating characteristic curves. Biometrics 2000; 56:1134-1136.