Cited by 94Statistical Methods and InferenceStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Review and comparison of ROC curve estimators for a time‐dependent outcome with marker‐dependent censoring

Blanche, Paul, Dartigues, Jean‐François, Jacqmin‐Gadda, Hélène·2013·Biometrical Journal

Abstract

To quantify the ability of a marker to predict the onset of a clinical outcome in the future, time‐dependent estimators of sensitivity, specificity, and ROC curve have been proposed accounting for censoring of the outcome. In this paper, we review these estimators, recall their assumptions about the censoring mechanism and highlight their relationships and properties. A simulation study shows that marker‐dependent censoring can lead to important biases for the ROC estimators not adapted to this case. A slight modification of the inverse probability of censoring weighting estimators proposed by Uno et al. (2007) and Hung and Chiang (2010a) performs as well as the nearest neighbor estimator of Heagerty et al. (2000) in the simulation study and has interesting practical properties. Finally, the estimators were used to evaluate abilities of a marker combining age and a cognitive test to predict dementia in the elderly. Data were obtained from the French PAQUID cohort. The censoring appears clearly marker‐dependent leading to appreciable differences between ROC curves estimated with the different methods.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bimj.201200045

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Blanche et al. showed that time-dependent ROC curve estimators perform similarly when censoring is independent, and are thus likely to yield comparable estimates of time-dependent concordance.

    “A recent study by Blanche et al. showed that these strategies perform similarly when censoring is independent,28 and are thus likely to yield comparable estimates of time-dependent concordance.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 31 · Cited by 94

Authors
Blanche, P., Dartigues, J., & Jacqmin‐Gadda, H.
Affiliations
Université de Bordeaux (FR)
Corresponding author
Blanche, Paul
Venue
Biometrical Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-06-21
Volume
55
Issue
5
Pages
687-704
ISSN
  • 0323-3847 (ISSN-L)
  • 1521-4036
OpenAlex
W1711352584
Cited by
94
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Biometrical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Ipsen
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
ROC curve estimation, time-dependent ROC curve, inverse probability of censoring weighting, nearest neighbor estimator, sensitivity and specificity estimation, dementia prediction, cognitive tests, PAQUID cohort, estimation bias
MeSH terms
Aged, Biometry, Dementia, Humans, Prognosis, ROC Curve, Time Factors, Models, Statistical, Biomarkers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review