HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text All Versions of this Article: 2471071321v1 247/1/12    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Gur, D. Articles by Rockette, H. E. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gur, D. Articles by Rockette, H. E.

Comparing Areas under Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves: Potential Impact of the "Last" Experimentally Measured Operating Point¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology (D.G.) and Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health (A.I.B., H.E.R.), University of Pittsburgh, Imaging Research, FARP Building, 3362 Fifth Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. Received July 26, 2007; revision requested September 10; revision received September 24; final version accepted October 25. Supported in part by grants EB001694, EB002106, and EB003503 (to the University of Pittsburgh) from the National Institute for Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health. Address correspondence to D.G. (e-mail: gurd{at}upmc.edu).

A specific issue related to the selection of the analytic tool used when comparing the estimated performance of systems within the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) paradigm is reviewed. This issue is related to the possible effect of the last experimentally ascertained ROC data point in terms of highest true-positive and false-positive fractions. An example of a case is presented where the selection of a specific analysis approach could affect the study conclusion from being not statistically significant for parametric analysis and significant for nonparametric analysis. This is followed by recommendations that should help prevent misinterpretation of results.

© RSNA, 2008