ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2025
The F score ranks diagnostic tests and prediction models inconsistently with their clinical utility.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
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.