↓ Skip to main content

Understanding increments in model performance metrics

Overview of attention for article published in Lifetime Data Analysis, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#36 of 122)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
reddit
1 Redditor
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Understanding increments in model performance metrics
Published in
Lifetime Data Analysis, December 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10985-012-9238-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael J. Pencina, Ralph B. D’Agostino, Joseph M. Massaro

Abstract

The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is the most commonly reported measure of discrimination for prediction models with binary outcomes. However, recently it has been criticized for its inability to increase when important risk factors are added to a baseline model with good discrimination. This has led to the claim that the reliance on the AUC as a measure of discrimination may miss important improvements in clinical performance of risk prediction rules derived from a baseline model. In this paper we investigate this claim by relating the AUC to measures of clinical performance based on sensitivity and specificity under the assumption of multivariate normality. The behavior of the AUC is contrasted with that of discrimination slope. We show that unless rules with very good specificity are desired, the change in the AUC does an adequate job as a predictor of the change in measures of clinical performance. However, stronger or more numerous predictors are needed to achieve the same increment in the AUC for baseline models with good versus poor discrimination. When excellent specificity is desired, our results suggest that the discrimination slope might be a better measure of model improvement than AUC. The theoretical results are illustrated using a Framingham Heart Study example of a model for predicting the 10-year incidence of atrial fibrillation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iceland 2 4%
United States 1 2%
Vietnam 1 2%
Unknown 42 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 20%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 28%
Mathematics 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 10 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 August 2022.
All research outputs
#13,361,642
of 23,053,169 outputs
Outputs from Lifetime Data Analysis
#36
of 122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,964
of 280,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lifetime Data Analysis
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,053,169 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,843 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them