Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36800973›Full record

ArticleBioData mining2023

The Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) should replace the ROC AUC as the standard metric for assessing binary classification.

Davide Chicco, Giuseppe Jurman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioData mining, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 197 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
197citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

197 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Data-Driven Critical Evaluation of the General Solubility Equation.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

137 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Davide ChiccoInstitute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, M5T 3M7, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. davidechicco@davidechicco.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9655-7142
Giuseppe JurmanData Science for Health Unit, Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Via Sommarive 18, 38123, Povo, Trento, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2705-5728

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Binary classification is a common task for which machine learning and computational statistics are used, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC) has become the common standard metric to evaluate binary classifications in most scientific fields. The ROC curve has true positive rate (also called sensitivity or recall) on the y axis and false positive rate on the x axis, and the ROC AUC can range from 0 (worst result) to 1 (perfect result). The ROC AUC, however, has several flaws and drawbacks. This score is generated including predictions that obtained insufficient sensitivity and specificity, and moreover it does not say anything about positive predictive value (also known as precision) nor negative predictive value (NPV) obtained by the classifier, therefore potentially generating inflated overoptimistic results. Since it is common to include ROC AUC alone without precision and negative predictive value, a researcher might erroneously conclude that their classification was successful. Furthermore, a given point in the ROC space does not identify a single confusion matrix nor a group of matrices sharing the same MCC value. Indeed, a given (sensitivity, specificity) pair can cover a broad MCC range, which casts doubts on the reliability of ROC AUC as a performance measure. In contrast, the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) generates a high score in its [Formula: see text] interval only if the classifier scored a high value for all the four basic rates of the confusion matrix: sensitivity, specificity, precision, and negative predictive value. A high MCC (for example, MCC [Formula: see text] 0.9), moreover, always corresponds to a high ROC AUC, and not vice versa. In this short study, we explain why the Matthews correlation coefficient should replace the ROC AUC as standard statistic in all the scientific studies involving a binary classification, in all scientific fields.

Indexed as

Area under the curveAUCBinary classificationConfusion matrixData miningData scienceMatthews correlation coefficientReceiver operating characteristic curveROCROC AUCSupervised machine learning

Identifiers

PMID36800973
PMCPMC9938573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.