Abstract

Purpose of study Methods of comparing the accuracy of diagnostic tests are of increasing necessity in biomedical science. When a test result is measured on a continuous scale, an assessment of the performance of the overall value of the test can be made using the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. This curve describes the discrimination ability of a diagnosis test in terms of diseased subjects from non-diseased subjects. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) describes the probability that a randomly chosen diseased subject will have higher probability of having disease than a randomly chosen non-diseased subject. For comparing two or more diagnostic test results, the difference between AUCs is often used. This paper proposes a non-parametric alternative method of comparing two or more correlated area under the curve (AUCs) of diagnostic tests for paired sample data. This method is based on Chi-square test statistic. Methods This paper investigated both parametric and non-parametric methods of comparing the equality of two AUCs and proposed a Chi-square test for the comparison of two or more diagnostic test processes. The proposed method does not require the knowledge of true status of subjects or gold standard in evaluating the accuracy of tests unlike other existing methods. The proposed method is most suitable for paired sample design. It also offers reliable statistical inferences even in small sample problems and circumvent the difficulties of deriving the statistical moments of complex summary statistics as seen in the Delong method. The proposed method provides for further analysis to determine the possible reason for rejecting the null hypothesis of equality of AUCs. Results The proposed method when applied on real data, avoids the lengthy and more difficult procedures of estimating the variances of two AUCs as a way of determining if two AUCs differ significantly. The method is validated using the Cochran Q test and was shown to compare favourably. The proposed method recommended for comparing two or more correlated AUCs when the data is paired. It is simple and does not require prior knowledge of true status of subjects unlike other existing methods. Keywords: Chi-square test, Cochran Q test, cut-off value, area under the curve, receiver operating characteristic, Dichotomous data DOI : 10.7176/JNSR/9-9-06 Publication date :May 31 st 2019

Highlights

  • The performance of a diagnostic test in the case of a binary predictor can be evaluated using the measures of sensitivity and specificity (Mandrekar,2010)

  • We propose a nonparametric method based on chi-square test for comparing two or more correlated area under the ROC curve (AUC) when the diagnostic test results are paired in the absence of the true disease status

  • Computational burden can still be substantial in binormal receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve as a method of calculating AUC because a number of iterative procedures that are involved in obtaining estimators, for instance Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) of AUC (Dorfmann & Alf 1969; Metz, Herman & Shen 1998)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The performance of a diagnostic test in the case of a binary predictor can be evaluated using the measures of sensitivity and specificity (Mandrekar,2010). It is desirable to assess performance of a diagnostic test over the range of possible cut-points for the predictor variable This is achieved by a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve that includes all the possible decision thresholds from a diagnostic test result (Mandrekar,2010). Metz, Wang, and Kronman(1984) extended this comparison to two correlated AUCs. ROC curves generated using data from patients where each patient is subjected to two (or more) different diagnostic tests of interest are considered as correlated ROC curves (Mandrekar,2010).in paired designs, the estimation and comparison of certain measures of diagnostic accuracy such as the positive (negative) predictive values has been the subject of several studies (Moskowitz and Pepe,2006; Wang et al, 2006)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call