↓ Skip to main content

Equivalence of binormal likelihood‐ratio and bi‐chi‐squared ROC curve models

Overview of attention for article published in Statistics in Medicine, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Equivalence of binormal likelihood‐ratio and bi‐chi‐squared ROC curve models
Published in
Statistics in Medicine, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/sim.6816
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

A basic assumption for a meaningful diagnostic decision variable is that there is a monotone relationship between it and its likelihood ratio. This relationship, however, generally does not hold for a decision variable that results in a binormal receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. As a result, ROC curve estimation based on the assumption of a binormal ROC-curve model produces improper ROC curves, which have 'hooks', are not concave over the entire domain and cross the chance line. Although in practice this 'improperness' is usually not noticeable, sometimes it is evident and problematic. To avoid this problem, Metz and Pan proposed basing ROC-curve estimation on the assumption of a binormal likelihood-ratio (binormal-LR) model, which states that the decision variable is an increasing transformation of the likelihood-ratio function of a random variable having normal conditional diseased and nondiseased distributions. However, their development is not easy to follow. I show that the binormal-LR model is equivalent to a bi-chi-squared model in the sense that the families of corresponding ROC curves are the same. The bi-chi-squared formulation provides an easier-to-follow development of the binormal-LR ROC curve and its properties in terms of well-known distributions. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 30%
Researcher 2 20%
Lecturer 1 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Unknown 1 10%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 2 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Unknown 3 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 November 2015.
All research outputs
#22,385,843
of 27,387,710 outputs
Outputs from Statistics in Medicine
#3,228
of 4,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#298,617
of 399,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Statistics in Medicine
#57
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,387,710 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,263 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 399,213 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.