Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41354862›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2025

The F score ranks diagnostic tests and prediction models inconsistently with their clinical utility.

Melissa Assel, Andrew Vickers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Melissa AsselDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Andrew VickersDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. vickersa@mskcc.org.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe F score is derived from precision (positive predictive value) and recall (sensitivity). It is increasingly used to evaluate diagnostic tests and prediction models in the machine learning literature. Although precision and recall can be differentially weighted using a parameter β, almost all applications use equal weighting, with β set to 1.

methodsWe considered a cancer detection scenario to explore the properties of the F score in comparison to net benefit, a well-established method for evaluating the clinical utility of tests and models. Because missing cancer can be fatal and biopsies are an invasive procedure, we would favor a test with high sensitivity.

resultsF scores did not provide a rank ordering of tests consistent with utility. F1 was highest for a test with greater specificity; in contrast, the conventional decision analytic measure, net benefit, rank ordered tests consistent with clinical intuition, with the highest sensitivity test favored. While it might be argued that F scores can be made consistent with utility by choosing a value of β different from 1, we found it is impossible to rationally prespecify β for any given clinical scenario, as even small changes in prevalence led to undesirable rank orderings for a given β being inconsistent with utility.

conclusionThe F score ranks diagnostic tests and prediction models inconsistently with their clinical utility. Moreover, the F score does not have an interpretable unit, does not allow for a comparison with a strategy assuming all are negative, and requires dichotomization of models. In contrast, standard decision-analytic measures - net benefit and decision curve analysis - allow rational and consistent choice of weighting, have an interpretable unit, can evaluate the strategy of assuming all are negative, and do not require dichotomization of continuous models. Consistent with TRIPOD AI we recommend that net benefit, alongside discrimination and calibration, be used for the evaluation of diagnostic tests and prediction models.

Indexed as

Diagnostic testsF scoreNet benefitPrediction modelsUtility

Identifiers

PMID41354862
PMCPMC12683848

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.