Skip to main content
6 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jan 24, 2016 at 19:18 comment added Frank Harrell Well put. My point is that to get an interpretable (if insensitive) measure of predictive discrimination the curve doesn't help at all, but the area under the curve ($c$-index), which can be computed quickly and easily using rank correlation/Wilcoxon test ideas, does help. It is unfortunate that an idea so clean as concordance happens to coincide with the area under such a silly curve.
Jan 24, 2016 at 14:41 comment added nootodis When you say that you "use" an ROC curve, is it for understanding the model's discriminative power after a model is chosen? Not to be used to make any type of model calibration. I see it used a lot for choosing a better threshold value, but from what I read from you, it is better to keep the model in context of it's probability then assigning it a threshold.
Jan 24, 2016 at 14:36 vote accept nootodis
Jan 23, 2016 at 19:24 comment added Frank Harrell IMHO ROC curves tell you nothing useful of any sort. And I don't want to know about 'ability to classify'; I want to know about ability to predict, and I don't want to use a method such as ROC that invites analysts to use thresholds. For model performance I want to use a proper accuracy score plus make a high resolution nonparametric calibration curve. I do use ROC areas ($c$-index; concordance probability) because it is an interpretable (if insensitive) measure of pure predictive discrimination.
Jan 23, 2016 at 19:06 comment added nootodis Appreciate the link. If I understand correctly from your paper, ROC curves only measure the ability of a model to classify what group the data belongs to, but it's lack of ability to tell how reliable a model is, therefore it is not a good way of measuring model performance.
Jan 22, 2016 at 22:04 history answered Frank Harrell CC BY-SA 3.0