The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Misuse of DeLong test to compare AUCs for nested models
Open accessAbstract
The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC of ROC) is a widely used measure of discrimination in risk prediction models. Routinely, the Mann–Whitney statistics is used as an estimator of AUC, while the change in AUC is tested by the DeLong test. However, very often, in settings where the model is developed and tested on the same dataset, the added predictor is statistically significantly associated with the outcome but fails to produce a significant improvement in the AUC. No conclusive resolution exists to explain this finding. In this paper, we will show that the reason lies in the inappropriate application of the DeLong test in the setting of nested models. Using numerical simulations and a theoretical argument based on generalized U‐statistics, we show that if the added predictor is not statistically significantly associated with the outcome, the null distribution is non‐normal, contrary to the assumption of DeLong test. Our simulations of different scenarios show that the loss of power because of such a misuse of the DeLong test leads to a conservative test for small and moderate effect sizes. This problem does not exist in cases of predictors that are associated with the outcome and for non‐nested models. We suggest that for nested models, only the test of association be performed for the new predictors, and if the result is significant, change in AUC be estimated with an appropriate confidence interval, which can be based on the DeLong approach. Copyright © 2012 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
Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories
Wilson, P. W. F., D’Agostino, R. B., Levy, D., Belanger, A. M., Silbershatz, H., & Kannel, W. B. (1998) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.97.18.1837 · Cited by 9,581
Self-citationGeneral Cardiovascular Risk Profile for Use in Primary Care: The Framingham Heart Study
D’Agostino, R. B., Vasan, R. S., Pencina, M. J., Wolf, P. A., Cobain, M., Massaro, J. M., & Kannel, W. B. (2008) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.107.699579 · Cited by 7,491
Self-citationGenotype score in addition to common risk factors for prediction of type 2 diabetes
Meigs, J. B., Shrader, P., Sullivan, L. M., McAteer, J. B., Fox, C. S., Dupuis, J., Manning, A. K., Florez, J. C., Wilson, P. W. F., D'Agostino, R. B., et al. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0804742 · Cited by 759
Self-citationTwo Guidelines for Bootstrap Hypothesis Testing
Hall, P., & Wilson, S. R. (1991) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2532163 · Cited by 471
Cited by
Moons, K. G. M., Altman, D. G., Reitsma, J. B., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Macaskill, P., Steyerberg, E. W., Vickers, A. J., Ransohoff, D. F., & Collins, G. S. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-0698 · Cited by 5,147
Fisher, A., Rudin, C., & Dominici, F. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1801.01489 · Cited by 1,165
Kocak, B., Baessler, B., Bakas, S., Cuocolo, R., Fedorov, A., Maier-Hein, L., Mercaldo, N., Müller, H., Orlhac, F., Pinto dos Santos, D., et al. (2023) · Insights into Imaging · doi:10.1186/s13244-023-01415-8 · Cited by 471
Kang, L., Chen, W., Petrick, N. A., & Gallas, B. D. (2015) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.6370 · Cited by 420
Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment: Insights from Framingham
D’Agostino Sr., R. B., Pencina, M. J., Massaro, J. M., & Coady, S. (2013) · Global Heart · doi:10.1016/j.gheart.2013.01.001 · Cited by 329
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Demler, O. V., Pencina, M. J., & D'Agostino, R. B.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-03-13
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 2577-2587
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2065565905
- Cited by
- 306
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 14.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
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.