MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1518873647 · doi:10.1177/070674370705200210

What's under the ROC? An Introduction to Receiver Operating Characteristics Curves

2007· article· en· W1518873647 on OpenAlexaffvenue
David L. Streiner, John Cairney

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiver operating characteristicCut-pointFalse positive paradoxPoint (geometry)StatisticsMathematicsFalse positives and false negativesComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is often necessary to dichotomize a continuous scale to separate respondents into normal and abnormal groups. However, because the distributions of the scores in these 2 groups most often overlap, any cut point that is chosen will result in 2 types of errors: false negatives (that is, abnormal cases judged to be normal) and false positives (that is, normal cases placed in the abnormal group). Changing the cut point will alter the numbers of erroneous judgments but will not eliminate the problem. A technique called receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves allows us to determine the ability ofa test to discriminate between groups, to choose the optimal cut point, and to compare the performance of 2 or more tests. We discuss how to calculate and compareROC curves and the factors that must be considered in choosing an optimal cut point.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.336
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.336
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0170.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.017
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations535
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207