二元分类器的受试者工作特征图和曲线下面积:认知筛选工具的语用分析。

IF 2.3 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Neurodegenerative disease management Pub Date : 2021-10-01 Epub Date: 2021-09-27 DOI:10.2217/nmt-2021-0013
Gashirai K Mbizvo, Andrew J Larner
{"title":"二元分类器的受试者工作特征图和曲线下面积:认知筛选工具的语用分析。","authors":"Gashirai K Mbizvo,&nbsp;Andrew J Larner","doi":"10.2217/nmt-2021-0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> To examine whether receiver operating characteristic plots and area under the curve (AUC) values may be potentially misleading when assessing cognitive screening instruments as binary predictors rather than as categorical or continuous scales. <b>Materials & methods:</b> AUC was calculated using different methods (rank-sum, diagnostic odds ratio) using data from test accuracy studies of two binary classifiers of cognitive status (applause sign, attended with sign), a screener producing categorical data (Codex), and a continuous scale screening test (Mini-Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination). <b>Results:</b> For all screeners, AUC calculated using diagnostic odds ratio method was greater than using rank-sum method. When Codex and Mini-Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination were analyzed as binary (single fixed threshold) tests, AUC using rank-sum method was lower than when screeners were analyzed as categorical or continuous scales, respectively. <b>Conclusion:</b> If cognitive screeners producing categorical or continuous measures are dichotomized, calculated AUC may be an underestimate, thus affecting screening test accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":19114,"journal":{"name":"Neurodegenerative disease management","volume":"11 5","pages":"353-360"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Receiver operating characteristic plot and area under the curve with binary classifiers: pragmatic analysis of cognitive screening instruments.\",\"authors\":\"Gashirai K Mbizvo,&nbsp;Andrew J Larner\",\"doi\":\"10.2217/nmt-2021-0013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> To examine whether receiver operating characteristic plots and area under the curve (AUC) values may be potentially misleading when assessing cognitive screening instruments as binary predictors rather than as categorical or continuous scales. <b>Materials & methods:</b> AUC was calculated using different methods (rank-sum, diagnostic odds ratio) using data from test accuracy studies of two binary classifiers of cognitive status (applause sign, attended with sign), a screener producing categorical data (Codex), and a continuous scale screening test (Mini-Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination). <b>Results:</b> For all screeners, AUC calculated using diagnostic odds ratio method was greater than using rank-sum method. When Codex and Mini-Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination were analyzed as binary (single fixed threshold) tests, AUC using rank-sum method was lower than when screeners were analyzed as categorical or continuous scales, respectively. <b>Conclusion:</b> If cognitive screeners producing categorical or continuous measures are dichotomized, calculated AUC may be an underestimate, thus affecting screening test accuracy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurodegenerative disease management\",\"volume\":\"11 5\",\"pages\":\"353-360\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurodegenerative disease management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2217/nmt-2021-0013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/9/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurodegenerative disease management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2217/nmt-2021-0013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/9/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

目的:研究受试者工作特征图和曲线下面积(AUC)值是否可能在评估认知筛查工具作为二元预测因子而不是分类或连续量表时产生误导。材料和方法:AUC使用不同的方法(秩和、诊断优势比)计算,使用来自两个认知状态二元分类器(鼓掌标志、参加标志)、产生分类数据的筛选器(Codex)和连续量表筛选测试(Mini-Addenbrooke's cognitive Examination)的测试准确性研究数据。结果:对于所有筛查者,诊断优势比法计算的AUC均大于秩和法。当Codex和Mini-Addenbrooke认知检查作为二元(单一固定阈值)测试进行分析时,使用秩和方法的AUC分别低于筛选者作为分类或连续量表进行分析时的AUC。结论:如果对产生分类或连续测量的认知筛选者进行二分类,计算出的AUC可能会被低估,从而影响筛选测试的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Receiver operating characteristic plot and area under the curve with binary classifiers: pragmatic analysis of cognitive screening instruments.

Aim: To examine whether receiver operating characteristic plots and area under the curve (AUC) values may be potentially misleading when assessing cognitive screening instruments as binary predictors rather than as categorical or continuous scales. Materials & methods: AUC was calculated using different methods (rank-sum, diagnostic odds ratio) using data from test accuracy studies of two binary classifiers of cognitive status (applause sign, attended with sign), a screener producing categorical data (Codex), and a continuous scale screening test (Mini-Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination). Results: For all screeners, AUC calculated using diagnostic odds ratio method was greater than using rank-sum method. When Codex and Mini-Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination were analyzed as binary (single fixed threshold) tests, AUC using rank-sum method was lower than when screeners were analyzed as categorical or continuous scales, respectively. Conclusion: If cognitive screeners producing categorical or continuous measures are dichotomized, calculated AUC may be an underestimate, thus affecting screening test accuracy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信