Model Checking for ROC Regression Analysis

The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve is a prominent tool for characterizing the accuracy of continuous diagnostic test. To account for factors that might invluence the test accuracy, various ROC regression methods have been proposed. However, as in any regression analysis, when the assumed models do not fit the data well, these methods may render invalid and misleading results. To date practical model checking techniques suitable for validating existing ROC regression models are not yet available. In this paper, we develop cumulative residual based procedures to graphically and numerically assess the goodness-of-fit for some commonly used ROC regression models, and show how specific components of these models can be examined within this framework. We derive asymptotic null distributions for the residual process and discuss resampling procedures to approximate these distributions in practice. We illustrate our methods with a dataset from the Cystic Fibrosis registry.

MULTIPLE MODEL EVALUATION ABSENT THE GOLD STANDARD VIA MODEL COMBINATION

We describe a method for evaluating an ensemble of predictive models given a sample of observations comprising the model predictions and the outcome event measured with error. Our formulation allows us to simultaneously estimate measurement error parameters, true outcome — aka the gold standard — and a relative weighting of the predictive scores. We describe conditions necessary to estimate the gold standard and for these estimates to be calibrated and detail how our approach is related to, but distinct from, standard model combination techniques. We apply our approach to data from a study to evaluate a collection of BRCA1/BRCA2 gene mutation prediction scores. In this example, genotype is measured with error by one or more genetic assays. We estimate true genotype for each individual in the dataset, operating characteristics of the commonly used genotyping procedures and a relative weighting of the scores. Finally, we compare the scores against the gold standard genotype and find that Mendelian scores are, on average, the more refined and better calibrated of those considered and that the comparison is sensitive to measurement error in the gold standard.