210 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8544679)
1. Resampling techniques in the analysis of non-binormal ROC data.
Mossman D
Med Decis Making; 1995; 15(4):358-66. PubMed ID: 8544679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Goodness-of-fit issues in ROC curve estimation.
Walsh SJ
Med Decis Making; 1999; 19(2):193-201. PubMed ID: 10231082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A comparison of parametric and nonparametric approaches to ROC analysis of quantitative diagnostic tests.
Hajian-Tilaki KO; Hanley JA; Joseph L; Collet JP
Med Decis Making; 1997; 17(1):94-102. PubMed ID: 8994156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Estimating the Area Under ROC Curve When the Fitted Binormal Curves Demonstrate Improper Shape.
Bandos AI; Guo B; Gur D
Acad Radiol; 2017 Feb; 24(2):209-219. PubMed ID: 27884464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Confidence bands for receiver operating characteristic curves.
Ma G; Hall WJ
Med Decis Making; 1993; 13(3):191-7. PubMed ID: 8412547
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Equivalence of binormal likelihood-ratio and bi-chi-squared ROC curve models.
Hillis SL
Stat Med; 2016 May; 35(12):2031-57. PubMed ID: 26608405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Minimum-norm estimation for binormal receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
Davidov O; Nov Y
Biom J; 2009 Dec; 51(6):1030-46. PubMed ID: 19894216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Smooth non-parametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for continuous diagnostic tests.
Zou KH; Hall WJ; Shapiro DE
Stat Med; 1997 Oct; 16(19):2143-56. PubMed ID: 9330425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Measurement error and confidence intervals for ROC curves.
Tosteson TD; Buonaccorsi JP; Demidenko E; Wells WA
Biom J; 2005 Aug; 47(4):409-16. PubMed ID: 16161800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The "proper" binormal model: parametric receiver operating characteristic curve estimation with degenerate data.
Pan X; Metz CE
Acad Radiol; 1997 May; 4(5):380-9. PubMed ID: 9156236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The bootstrap: a technique for data-driven statistics. Using computer-intensive analyses to explore experimental data.
Henderson AR
Clin Chim Acta; 2005 Sep; 359(1-2):1-26. PubMed ID: 15936746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Limitations to the robustness of binormal ROC curves: effects of model misspecification and location of decision thresholds on bias, precision, size and power.
Walsh SJ
Stat Med; 1997 Mar; 16(6):669-79. PubMed ID: 9131755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A smooth ROC curve estimator based on log-concave density estimates.
Rufibach K
Int J Biostat; 2012; 8(1):. PubMed ID: 22611590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The use of the 'binormal' model for parametric ROC analysis of quantitative diagnostic tests.
Hanley JA
Stat Med; 1996 Jul; 15(14):1575-85. PubMed ID: 8855483
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Plotting ROC curves: giving us fits.
Mossman D
Med Decis Making; 1999; 19(2):214-5. PubMed ID: 10231085
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. A bivariate contaminated binormal model for robust fitting of proper ROC curves to a pair of correlated, possibly degenerate, ROC datasets.
Zhai X; Chakraborty DP
Med Phys; 2017 Jun; 44(6):2207-2222. PubMed ID: 28382718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A new parametric method based on S-distributions for computing receiver operating characteristic curves for continuous diagnostic tests.
Sorribas A; March J; Trujillano J
Stat Med; 2002 May; 21(9):1213-35. PubMed ID: 12111875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of Paired ROC Curves through a Two-Stage Test.
Yu W; Park E; Chang YC
J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(5):881-902. PubMed ID: 24905904
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The analysis of 2 x 1 and 2 x 2 contingency tables: an historical review.
Richardson JT
Stat Methods Med Res; 1994; 3(2):107-33. PubMed ID: 7952428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Classifying binormal diagnostic tests using separation-asymmetry diagrams with constant-performance curves.
Somoza E
Med Decis Making; 1994; 14(2):157-68. PubMed ID: 8028468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
