ArticlePattern recognition letters2024
On the bias in the AUC variance estimate.
Article in Pattern recognition letters, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systematic reviews of medical machine learning: limitations of pooling AUCs.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Confidence interval estimation for the win probability in cluster randomized trials with hierarchical composite endpoints using win fractions.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2026Article
- Diagnosis of SLAP lesions on shoulder MRI using a 2.5D deep learning and ensemble learning framework.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Circular RNAs in Plasma and Beyond: Potential Biomarkers for Breast Cancer.Oncology research · 2026Review
- Rank-based estimators of global treatment effects for cluster randomized trials with multiple endpoints on different scales.Statistical methods in medical research · 2025Article
- Multi-omics exploration of chaperone-mediated immune-proteostasis crosstalk in vascular dementia and identification of diagnostic biomarkers.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Comparison of GARP and MaxEnt in Modeling Current and Future Geographic Distribution ofEcology and evolution · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) is a standard metric for quantifying and comparing binary classifiers. A popular approach to estimating the AUCs and the associated variabilities - the variance of the AUC or the full covariance matrix of multiple correlated AUCs - is the one proposed by DeLong et al [1], which is based on the Mann Whitney two-sample U-statistics. The bias of a variance estimator is an important factor in applications such as hypothesis testing and construction of confidence intervals - a negatively biased variance estimator may lead to incorrect conclusions, and a positive bias is conservative hence preferable. In this work, we show that the (co-)variance estimate in DeLong's approach is always positively biased. More specifically, the difference matrix between the expectation of the estimated covariance and the true covariance is a positive semi-definite matrix. This bias is non-negligible when the sample size is small, and quickly diminishes as the sample size increases. Our method relies on constructing, from the AUC kernel, a random variable whose (co-)variance matrix coincides with the bias, thereby establishing the claim. We also discuss alternative approaches to AUC variance estimation that may potentially reduce the bias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.