MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162923601 · doi:10.1002/cjs.10044

Nonparametric covariate adjustment for receiver operating characteristic curves

2009· article· en· W2162923601 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Fang Yao, Radu V. Craiu, Benjamin Reiser

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovariateNonparametric statisticsReceiver operating characteristicEstimatorStatisticsMathematicsConsistency (knowledge bases)Asymptotic distributionEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The accuracy of a diagnostic test is typically characterized using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Summarizing indexes such as the area under the ROC curve (AUC) are used to compare different tests as well as to measure the difference between two populations. Often additional information is available on some of the covariates which are known to influence the accuracy of such measures. The authors propose nonparametric methods for covariate adjustment of the AUC. Models with normal errors and possibly non‐normal errors are discussed and analyzed separately. Nonparametric regression is used for estimating mean and variance functions in both scenarios. In the model that relaxes the assumption of normality, the authors propose a covariate‐adjusted Mann–Whitney estimator for AUC estimation which effectively uses available data to construct working samples at any covariate value of interest and is computationally efficient for implementation. This provides a generalization of the Mann–Whitney approach for comparing two populations by taking covariate effects into account. The authors derive asymptotic properties for the AUC estimators in both settings, including asymptotic normality, optimal strong uniform convergence rates and mean squared error (MSE) consistency. The MSE of the AUC estimators was also assessed in smaller samples by simulation. Data from an agricultural study were used to illustrate the methods of analysis. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 38:27–46; 2010 © 2009 Statistical Society of Canada

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.212
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.212
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207