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

Academic Radiology

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 209-219

  Bandos, Andriy I ^a   Guo, Ben ^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

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

Indexed keywords

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BINORMAL CURVE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; HUMAN; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RELIABILITY; SAMPLE SIZE; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; RADIOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

AREA UNDER CURVE; BIAS; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; RADIOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 85006975151     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: 18784046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2016.09.020     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. 1 Egan, J.P., Signal detection theory and ROC analysis. 1975, Academic Press, New York.
2. 2 Pepe, M.S., The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. 2004, Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
3. 3 Zhou, X.H., Obuchowski, N.A., McClish, D.K., Statistical methods in diagnostic medicine. 2nd ed., 2011, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
4. 4 Hajian-Tilaki, K.O., Hanley, J.A., Joseph, L., et al. A comparison of parametric and nonparametric approaches to ROC analysis of quantitative diagnostic tests. Med Decis Making 17 (1997), 94–102.
5. 5 Constantine, K., Karson, M., Tse, S.K., Estimation of P(Y
6. 6 DeLong, E.R., DeLong, D.M., Clarke-Pearson, D.L., Comparing the area under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44 (1988), 837–845.
7. 7 Obuchowski, N.A., Lieber, M.L., Confidence intervals for the receiver operating characteristic area in studies with small samples. Acad Radiol 5 (1998), 561–571.
8. 8 Dorfman, D.D., Alf, E. Jr, Maximum likelihood estimation of parameters of signal detection theory and determination of confidence intervals – rating-method data. J Math Psychol 6 (1969), 487–496.
9. 9 Hanley, J.A., The robustness of the “binormal” assumptions used in fitting ROC curves. Med Decis Making 8 (1988), 197–203.
10. 10 Walsh, S.J., Limitations to the robustness of binormal ROC curves: effects of model misspecification and location of decision threshold on bias, precision, size and power. Stat Med 16 (1999), 669–679.
11. 11 Gönen, M., Analyzing receiver operating characteristic curves with SAS®. 2007, SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
12. 12 Obuchowski, N.A., McClish, D.K., Sample size determination for diagnostic accuracy studies involving binormal ROC curve indices. Stat Med 16 (1997), 1529–1542.
13. 13 Hintze, J., PASS 12. Kaysville, UT: NCSS, LLC [computer software]; Available at www.ncss.com, 2013 Accessed November 12, 2016.
14. 14 Fawcett, T., An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognit Lett 27 (2006), 861–874.
15. 15 Wagner, R.F., Metz, C.E., Campbell, G., Assessment of medical imaging systems and computer aids: a tutorial review. Acad Radiol 14 (2007), 723–748.
16. 16 Pan, X., Metz, C.E., The “proper” binormal model: parametric receiver operating characteristic curve estimation with degenerate data. Acad Radiol 4 (1997), 380–389.
17. 17 Metz ROC software. University of Chicago [computer software]; Available at http://metz-roc.uchicago.edu/MetzROC/software Accessed November 12, 2016.
18. 18 Dorfman, D.D., Berbaum, K.S., Metz, C.E., et al. Proper receiver operating characteristic analysis: the bigamma model. Acad Radiol 4 (1997), 138–149.
19. 19 Hillis, S.L., Berbaum, K.S., Using the mean-to-sigma ratio as a measure of the improperness of binormal ROC curves. Acad Radiol 18 (2011), 143–154.
20. 20 Huang, Y., Pepe, M.S., A parametric ROC model-based approach for evaluating the predictiveness of continuous markers in case-control studies. Biometrics 65 (2009), 1133–1144.
21. 21 Hillis, S.L., Equivalence of binormal likelihood-ratio and bi-chi-squared ROC curve models. Stat Med 35 (2016), 2031–2057, 10.1002/sim.6816.
22. 22 Herron, J.M., Bender, T.M., Campbell, W.L., et al. Effects of luminance and resolution on observer performance with chest radiographs. Radiology 215 (2000), 169–174.
23. 23 Hillis, S.L., Schartz, K.M., Berbaum, K.S., OR/DBM MRMC for SAS (Version 3.0) [computer software]. Available at http://perception.radiology.uiowa.edu, 2012 Accessed November 12, 2016.
24. 24 McClish, D., Analyzing a portion of the ROC curve. Med Decis Making 9 (1989), 190–195.
25. 25 Jiang, Y., Metz, C.E., Nishikawa, R.M., A receiver operating characteristic partial area index for highly sensitive diagnostic tests. Radiology 201 (1996), 745–750.
26. 26 Ma, H., Bandos, A.I., Rockette, H.E., et al. On use of partial area under the ROC curve for evaluation of diagnostic performance. Stat Med 32 (2013), 3449–3458.
27. 27 Pisano, E.D., Gatsonis, C., Yaffe, M., et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353 (2005), 1773–1783.