Biostatistics 3:421-432 (2002)
© 2002 Oxford University Press
Distribution-free ROC analysis using binary regression techniques
Children's Oncology Group, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, PO Box 60012, Arcadia, CA 91066, USA talonzo{at}childrensoncologygroup.org
Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA mspepe{at}u.washington.edu
*To whom correspondence should be addressed
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) regression methodology is used to identify factors that affect the accuracy of medical diagnostic tests. In this paper, we consider a ROC model for which the ROC curve is a parametric function of covariates but distributions of the diagnostic test results are not specified. Covariates can be either common to all subjects or specific to those with disease. We propose a new estimation procedure based on binary indicators defined by the test result for a diseased subject exceeding various specified quantiles of the distribution of test results from non-diseased subjects with the same covariate values. This procedure is conceptually and computationally simplified relative to existing procedures. Simulation study results indicate that the approach has fairly high statistical efficiency. The new ROC regression methodology is used to evaluate childhood measurements of body mass index as a predictive marker of adult obesity.
Keywords: Biomarkers; Classification; Diagnostic tests; Prediction; ROC analysis; Sensitivity; Specificity
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
H. Janes and M. S. Pepe Adjusting for covariate effects on classification accuracy using the covariate-adjusted receiver operating characteristic curve Biometrika, June 1, 2009; 96(2): 371 - 382. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S.-Y. Shiu and C. Gatsonis The predictive receiver operating characteristic curve for the joint assessment of the positive and negative predictive values Phil Trans R Soc A, July 13, 2008; 366(1874): 2313 - 2333. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Janes and M. S. Pepe Adjusting for Covariates in Studies of Diagnostic, Screening, or Prognostic Markers: An Old Concept in a New Setting Am. J. Epidemiol., July 1, 2008; 168(1): 89 - 97. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. A. Medeiros, C. Bowd, L. M. Zangwill, C. Patel, and R. N. Weinreb Detection of Glaucoma Using Scanning Laser Polarimetry with Enhanced Corneal Compensation Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., July 1, 2007; 48(7): 3146 - 3153. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Ghosh Incorporating monotonicity into the evaluation of a biomarker Biostat., April 1, 2007; 8(2): 402 - 413. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. A. Medeiros, P. A. Sample, L. M. Zangwill, J. M. Liebmann, C. A. Girkin, and R. N. Weinreb A statistical approach to the evaluation of covariate effects on the receiver operating characteristic curves of diagnostic tests in glaucoma. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., June 1, 2006; 47(6): 2520 - 2527. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Kanematsu, S. Goshima, H. K. Hussain, T. D. Johnson, H. V. Nghiem, and I. R. Francis Does T2-weighted MR Imaging Really Add No Value in Detection and Characterization of Focal Lesions in Cirrhotic Liver? * Dr Hussain and colleagues respond: Radiology, February 1, 2005; 234(2): 638 - 640. [Full Text] |
||||





