The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Insights into the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) as a discrimination measure in species distribution modelling
Abstract
Aim The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) is a widely used statistic for assessing the discriminatory capacity of species distribution models. Here, I used simulated data to examine the interdependence of the AUC and classical discrimination measures (sensitivity and specificity) derived for the application of a threshold. I shall further exemplify with simulated data the implications of using the AUC to evaluate potential versus realized distribution models. Innovation After applying the threshold that makes sensitivity and specificity equal, a strong relationship between the AUC and these two measures was found. This result is corroborated with real data. On the other hand, the AUC penalizes the models that estimate potential distributions (the regions where the species could survive and reproduce due to the existence of suitable environmental conditions), and favours those that estimate realized distributions (the regions where the species actually lives). Main conclusions Firstly, the independence of the AUC from the threshold selection may be irrelevant in practice. This result also emphasizes the fact that the AUC assumes nothing about the relative costs of errors of omission and commission. However, in most real situations this premise may not be optimal. Measures derived from a contingency table for different cost ratio scenarios, together with the ROC curve, may be more informative than reporting just a single AUC value. Secondly, the AUC is only truly informative when there are true instances of absence available and the objective is the estimation of the realized distribution. When the potential distribution is the goal of the research, the AUC is not an appropriate performance measure because the weight of commission errors is much lower than that of omission errors.
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
McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3242-6 · Cited by 16,836
A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models
FIELDING, A. H., & BELL, J. F. (1997) · Environmental Conservation · doi:10.1017/s0376892997000088 · Cited by 6,956
Cited by
Fourcade, Y., Besnard, A. G., & Secondi, J. (2018) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1111/geb.12684 · Cited by 500
The global distribution of known and undiscovered ant biodiversity
Kass, J. M., Guénard, B., Dudley, K. L., Jenkins, C. N., Azuma, F., Fisher, B. L., Parr, C. L., Gibb, H., Longino, J. T., Ward, P. S., et al. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abp9908 · Cited by 194
Using machine learning methods to predict in-hospital mortality of sepsis patients in the ICU
Kong, G., Lin, K., & Hu, Y. (2020) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-020-01271-2 · Cited by 180
Contribution of climate change to the spatial expansion of West Nile virus in Europe
Erazo, D., Grant, L., Ghisbain, G., Marini, G., Colón-González, F. J., Wint, W., Rizzoli, A., Van Bortel, W., Vogels, C. B. F., Grubaugh, N. D., et al. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-45290-3 · Cited by 151
Environmental filtering improves ecological niche models across multiple scales
Castellanos, A. A., Huntley, J. W., Voelker, G., & Lawing, A. M. (2019) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13142 · Cited by 118
megaSDM: Integrating dispersal and time-step analyses into species distribution models
Shipley, B. R., Bach, R., Do, Y., Strathearn, H., McGuire, J. L., & Dilkina, B. (2022) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.05450 · Cited by 80
Metadata
- Authors
- Jiménez‐Valverde, A.
- Venue
- Global Ecology and Biogeography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-05-27
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 498-507
- ISSN
- 1466-822X (ISSN-L)
- 1466-8238
- OpenAlex
- W2115538424
- Cited by
- 803
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 17.36
- 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
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.