Assessing diagnostic tests by a strictly proper scoring rule
- 1 May 1989
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Statistics in Medicine
- Vol. 8 (5) , 609-618
- https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780080510
Abstract
Evaluation of univariate quantitative diagnostic tests by strictly proper scoring rules is considered as an alternative to the traditional error rate measures. In principle, the posterior probability of disease as a function of the test value is estimated from training observations, and subsequently the score is assessed on a set of test samples. The same subjects may serve as training and test samples when the bootstrap procedure is applied for estimation of standard errors and correction of bias. The method is demonstrated using serum bile acids and bilirubin in patients with liver disease. The power for comparison of scores from two tests is compared with that from error rate measures for some typical situations.Keywords
This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- Differential diagnosis of jaundice: applicability of the Copenhagen Pocket Chart proved in Stockholm patientsLiver International, 2008
- Probabilistic prediction in patient management and clinical trialsStatistics in Medicine, 1986
- Frequency Polygons: Theory and ApplicationJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1985
- Fasting and Postprandial Serum Concentrations of Glycine- and Taurine-Conjugated Bile Acids in Crohn's DiseaseScandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 1983
- A Leisurely Look at the Bootstrap, the Jackknife, and Cross-ValidationThe American Statistician, 1983
- On the standard error of the probability of a particular diagnosisStatistics in Medicine, 1983
- Predictive Value of the Concentration in Serum of Total 3α-Hydroxy Bile Acids in the Diagnosis of Hepatobiliary DiseaseScandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 1982
- Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the JackknifeThe Annals of Statistics, 1979
- The Evaluation of Clinical PredictionsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1977
- Elicitation of Personal Probabilities and ExpectationsJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1971