117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9131755)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Sample size determination for diagnostic accuracy studies involving binormal ROC curve indices.
Obuchowski NA; McClish DK
Stat Med; 1997 Jul; 16(13):1529-42. PubMed ID: 9249923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Analyzing a portion of the ROC curve.
McClish DK
Med Decis Making; 1989; 9(3):190-5. PubMed ID: 2668680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. "Proper" Binormal ROC Curves: Theory and Maximum-Likelihood Estimation.
Metz CE; Pan X
J Math Psychol; 1999 Mar; 43(1):1-33. PubMed ID: 10069933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Using the mean-to-sigma ratio as a measure of the improperness of binormal ROC curves.
Hillis SL; Berbaum KS
Acad Radiol; 2011 Feb; 18(2):143-54. PubMed ID: 21232682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A contaminated binormal model for ROC data: Part III. Initial evaluation with detection ROC data.
Dorfman DD; Berbaum KS
Acad Radiol; 2000 Jun; 7(6):438-47. PubMed ID: 10845403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. On the use of partial area under the ROC curve for comparison of two diagnostic tests.
Ma H; Bandos AI; Gur D
Biom J; 2015 Mar; 57(2):304-20. PubMed ID: 25537143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Constructing "proper" ROCs from ordinal response data using weighted power functions.
Mossman D; Peng H
Med Decis Making; 2014 May; 34(4):523-35. PubMed ID: 24029820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The robustness of the "binormal" assumptions used in fitting ROC curves.
Hanley JA
Med Decis Making; 1988; 8(3):197-203. PubMed ID: 3398748
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
