PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 19, 2007Circulation2,121 citationsOpen Access

Use and Misuse of the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve in Risk Prediction

View Full Paper
Nancy R. Cook
Nancy R. CookGeneral / Preventive / Lipids

Key Points

  • To evaluate the appropriateness and limitations of using the c statistic, or area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, for evaluating clinical models that predict future disease risk.
  • Assessed statistical properties of the c statistic compared to model calibration in the context of disease risk stratification.
  • Analyzed the effects of established cardiovascular risk factors (lipids, hypertension, smoking) and hypothetical biomarkers on individual 10-year risk estimates and treatment classifications.
  • Strong risk factors with an odds ratio of 3 and standard risk factors marginally shift the c statistic despite significantly altering individual 10-year cardiovascular risk estimates (e.g., from 8% to 24%).
  • Perfectly calibrated risk models for complex diseases achieve c statistic values well below 1.0, demonstrating that relying solely on the c statistic can mistakenly eliminate valid risk factors from clinical scores.

Abstract

The c statistic, or area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, achieved popularity in diagnostic testing, in which the test characteristics of sensitivity and specificity are relevant to discriminating diseased versus nondiseased patients. The c statistic, however, may not be optimal in assessing models that predict future risk or stratify individuals into risk categories. In this setting, calibration is as important to the accurate assessment of risk. For example, a biomarker with an odds ratio of 3 may have little effect on the c statistic, yet an increased level could shift estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk for an individual patient from 8% to 24%, which would lead to different treatment recommendations under current Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Accepted risk factors such as lipids, hypertension, and smoking have only marginal impact on the c statistic individually yet lead to more accurate reclassification of large proportions of patients into higher-risk or lower-risk categories. Perfectly calibrated models for complex disease can, in fact, only achieve values for the c statistic well below the theoretical maximum of 1. Use of the c statistic for model selection could thus naively eliminate established risk factors from cardiovascular risk prediction scores. As novel risk factors are discovered, sole reliance on the c statistic to evaluate their utility as risk predictors thus seems ill-advised.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Nancy R. Cook (2007) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69d72f0a424c1fc5df563cb5https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.106.672402
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1The conservativeness of standard C statistics in the prediction of clinical events2025 · 4 citations
  2. 2The conservativeness of standard C statistics in the prediction of clinical events2025
  3. 3Relevance of the C-Statistic When Evaluating Risk-Adjustment Models in Surgery2012 · 128 citations
  4. 4Relationship of Predictive Modeling to Receiver Operating Characteristics2008 · 25 citations
  5. 5Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: From area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond2007 · 6,468 citations