Cited by 30Artificial Intelligence in HealthcareImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Calibration of medical diagnostic classifier scores to the probability of disease

Open access
Chen, Weijie, Sahiner, Berkman, Samuelson, Frank, Pezeshk, Aria, Petrick, Nicholas·2018·Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Abstract

Scores produced by statistical classifiers in many clinical decision support systems and other medical diagnostic devices are generally on an arbitrary scale, so the clinical meaning of these scores is unclear. Calibration of classifier scores to a meaningful scale such as the probability of disease is potentially useful when such scores are used by a physician. In this work, we investigated three methods (parametric, semi-parametric, and non-parametric) for calibrating classifier scores to the probability of disease scale and developed uncertainty estimation techniques for these methods. We showed that classifier scores on arbitrary scales can be calibrated to the probability of disease scale without affecting their discrimination performance. With a finite dataset to train the calibration function, it is important to accompany the probability estimate with its confidence interval. Our simulations indicate that, when a dataset used for finding the transformation for calibration is also used for estimating the performance of calibration, the resubstitution bias exists for a performance metric involving the truth states in evaluating the calibration performance. However, the bias is small for the parametric and semi-parametric methods when the sample size is moderate to large (>100 per class).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0962280216661371

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [21]Metz CE Herman BA Shen J Maximum-likelihood estimation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves from continuously-distributed data Stat Med 1998 17 1033 1053 9612889
  2. [40]Kondratovich MV Yousef WA Evaluation of accuracy and optimal cutoff of diagnostic devices in the same study Proceedings of the 2005 joint statistical meetings, section on statistics in epidemiology 2547 2551 Alexandria, VA American Statistical Association

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, W., Sahiner, B., Samuelson, F., Pezeshk, A., & Petrick, N.
Affiliations
  • Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, USA
  • United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
Venue
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
Published
2016-08-08
Volume
27
Issue
5
Pages
1394-1409
ISSN
  • 0962-2802 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0334
OpenAlex
W2483232919
Cited by
29
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Statistical Methods in Medical Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (FD999999)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
disease probability, clinical decision support systems, medical diagnostic devices, uncertainty estimation, confidence intervals, parameter calibration, non-parametric calibration, discrimination performance
MeSH terms
Calibration, Diagnosis, Disease, Humans, Probability, Statistics as Topic, Confidence Intervals, Sample Size, Statistics, Nonparametric

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