Original InvestigationBootstrap estimation of diagnostic accuracy with patient-clustered data
References (12)
- et al.
CT and MRI imaging in the staging of colorectal carcinoma: report of the Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group II
Radiology
(1996) - et al.
Multi-center trial to evaluate peripheral vascular magnetic resonance angiography
JAMA
(1995) Analysis of correlated ROC areas in diagnostic testing
Biometrics
(1997)- et al.
A marginal regression modeling framework for evaluating medical diagnostic tests
Stat Med
(1997) - et al.
Analyzing correlated binary data using SAS
Comput Biomed Res
(1990) Nonparametric analysis of clustered ROC curve data
Biometrics
(1997)
Cited by (81)
Outcome of LR-3 and LR-4 observations without arterial phase hyperenhancement at Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI follow-up
2020, Clinical ImagingCitation Excerpt :However, there were not correlated lesions because all observations within the same patient had the same category at follow-up. Therefore, exact Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals were used to calculate sensitivity and specificity, while standard logit confidence intervals were used to calculate PPV and NPV [17]. In order to assess if major or ancillary features were associated with outcome of LR-3 and LR-4 observations, the Chi-square test and Fischer's exact test were used.
RATE-iPATH: On the design of integrated ultrasonic biomarkers for breast cancer detection
2020, Biomedical Signal Processing and ControlAutomatic classification of pulmonary peri-fissural nodules in computed tomography using an ensemble of 2D views and a convolutional neural network out-of-the-box
2015, Medical Image AnalysisCitation Excerpt :Furthermore, the ensemble with SVM performs better than BoF in the region of the curve with specificity > 0.9. In order to evaluate the statistical significance of the difference in performance for the considered approaches, we applied bootstrap to the ROC curves and tested the statistical significance considering 95% of confidence interval, as described by Rutter (2000). As a result, the three considered approaches did not show any significant difference in performance: BoF vs SVM (p-Value = 0.255), BoF vs RF (p-Value = 0.132), SVM vs RF (p-Value = 0.258).
AIROGS: Artificial Intelligence for Robust Glaucoma Screening Challenge
2024, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging