The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Properties of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for diagnostic test data
Abstract
The summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve has been recommended to represent the performance of a diagnostic test, based on data from a meta‐analysis. However, little is known about the basic properties of the SROC curve or its estimate. In this paper, the position of the SROC curve is characterized in terms of the overall diagnostic odds ratio and the magnitude of inter‐study heterogeneity in the odds ratio. The area under the curve (AUC) and an index Q*are discussed as potentially useful summaries of the curve. It is shown that AUC is maximized when the study odds ratios are homogeneous, and that it is quite robust to heterogeneity. An upper bound is derived for AUC based on an exact analytic expression for the homogeneous situation, and a lower bound based on the limit case Q*, defined by the point where sensitivity equals specificity:Q*is invariant to heterogeneity. The standard error of AUC is derived for homogeneous studies, and shown to be a reasonable approximation with heterogeneous studies. The expressions for AUC and its standard error are easily computed in the homogeneous case, and avoid the need for numerical integration in the more general case. SE(AUC) and SE(Q*) are found to be numerically close, with SE(Q*) being larger if the odds ratio is very large. The methods are illustrated using data for the Pap smear screening test for cervical cancer, and for three tests for the diagnosis of metastases in cervical cancer patients. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. (1988) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531595 · Cited by 22,649
Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.
Lijmer, J. G. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1061 · Cited by 1,861
Cited by
Reitsma, J. B., Glas, A. S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Bossuyt, P. M., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 · Cited by 3,369
“When the DOR does va with S, the coefficient of the slope ( β) has no direct interpretation, but has a considerable effect on the shape of the sR curve[18].”
BackgroundDeeks, J. J., Macaskill, P., & Irwig, L. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016 · Cited by 2,910
Manea, L., Gilbody, S., & McMillan, D. (2012) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.110829 · Cited by 1,966
Accuracy of Deception Judgments
Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2 · Cited by 1,953
Gilbody, S., Richards, D., Brealey, S., & Hewitt, C. (2007) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0333-y · Cited by 1,290
Metadata
- Authors
- Walter, S. D.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-04-10
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1237-1256
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2144420447
- Cited by
- 672
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 13.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Properties of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for diagnostic test data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sim.1099
- The paper
- Walter, S. D. (2002). Properties of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for diagnostic test data. Statistics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1099
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.