A solution for the most basic optimization problem associated with an ROC curve

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Volumn 15, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 571-584

  Le, Chap T ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACID PHOSPHATASE; CARCINOGEN; COTININE; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ACID PHOSPHATASE BLOOD LEVEL; ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CIGARETTE SMOKING; CLASSIFICATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; LUNG CANCER; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; PREDICTION; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; PROSTATE CANCER; RADIODIAGNOSIS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REFERENCE VALUE; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; URINALYSIS; YOUDEN INDEX;

HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEOPLASMS; PROGNOSIS; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; ROC CURVE; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 33846200422     PISSN: 09622802     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0962280206070637     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Miller RG, Efron B, Brown Jr BW, Moses LE. Biostatistics casebook. Wiley-Interscience, 1980; 3-18.
2. 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.
3. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982; 143: 29-36.
4. Begg CB. Advances in statistical methodology for diagnostic medicine in the 1980's. Statistics in Medicine 1991; 10: 1887-95.
5. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 1950; 3: 32-5.
6. Gart JJ, Buck AA. Comparison of a screening test and a reference test in epidemiologic studies. American Journal of Epidemiology 1966; 83: 593-602.
7. Steck GB, Zimmer. Estimation of acceleration and ageing functions. Proceedings 1972 NATO conference on reliability evaluation and reliability testing, The Hague, Netherlands.
8. Le CT. Evaluation of confounding effects in ROC studies. Biometrics 1997; 53: 998-1007.
9. Anderson KE, Carmella SG, Ye M, Bliss RL, Le C, Murphy L, Hecht SS. Metabolites of tobacco-specific lung carcinogen in nonsmoking women exposed to environmental smoke. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2001; 93: 378-81.
10. Chou TC. Derivation and properties of Michaelis-Menten type and Hill type equations for reference ligands. Journal of Theoretical Biology 1976; 59: 233-76.
11. Simpson AJ, Fritter MJ. What is the best index of detectability? Psychological Bulletin 1973; 80: 481-8.
12. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983; 148: 839-43.
13. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988; 44: 837-45.
14. Weiand S, Mitchell HG, James BR, James KL. A family of nonparametric statistics for comparing diagnostic markers with paired or unpaired data. Biometrics 1989; 76: 585-92.
15. Newcombe RG. Simultaneous comparison of sensitivity and specificity of two tests in paired design: a straightforward graphical approach. Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20: 907-915.
16. McNemar Q. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika 1947; 17: 153-7.