MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112200626 · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-82

Interpreting the concordance statistic of a logistic regression model: relation to the variance and odds ratio of a continuous explanatory variable

2012· article· en· W2112200626 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter C. Austin, Ewout W. Steyerberg

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Research Methodology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsStatisticsMathematicsStatisticLogistic regressionSample size determinationNormal distributionStandard deviationSampling distributionPRESS statisticMonte Carlo methodVariable (mathematics)Cumulative distribution functionRegression analysisEconometricsAncillary statisticF-testProbability density function

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: When outcomes are binary, the c-statistic (equivalent to the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve) is a standard measure of the predictive accuracy of a logistic regression model. METHODS: An analytical expression was derived under the assumption that a continuous explanatory variable follows a normal distribution in those with and without the condition. We then conducted an extensive set of Monte Carlo simulations to examine whether the expressions derived under the assumption of binormality allowed for accurate prediction of the empirical c-statistic when the explanatory variable followed a normal distribution in the combined sample of those with and without the condition. We also examine the accuracy of the predicted c-statistic when the explanatory variable followed a gamma, log-normal or uniform distribution in combined sample of those with and without the condition. RESULTS: Under the assumption of binormality with equality of variances, the c-statistic follows a standard normal cumulative distribution function with dependence on the product of the standard deviation of the normal components (reflecting more heterogeneity) and the log-odds ratio (reflecting larger effects). Under the assumption of binormality with unequal variances, the c-statistic follows a standard normal cumulative distribution function with dependence on the standardized difference of the explanatory variable in those with and without the condition. In our Monte Carlo simulations, we found that these expressions allowed for reasonably accurate prediction of the empirical c-statistic when the distribution of the explanatory variable was normal, gamma, log-normal, and uniform in the entire sample of those with and without the condition. CONCLUSIONS: The discriminative ability of a continuous explanatory variable cannot be judged by its odds ratio alone, but always needs to be considered in relation to the heterogeneity of the population.

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)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.416
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.416
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.503
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.058 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations271
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Research MethodologySame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207