Re: [R] Comparing differences in AUC from 2 different models

From: Frank E Harrell Jr <f.harrell_at_vanderbilt.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:48:18 -0500

Monica Pisica wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to compare differences in AUC from 2 different models, glm and gam for predicting presence / absence. I know that in theory the model with a higher AUC is better, but what I am interested in is if statistically the increase in AUC from the glm model to the gam model is significant. I also read quite extensive discussions on the list about ROC and AUC but I still didn't find my answer.
>
> To calculate the AUC and plot the ROC I used the package PresenceAbsence. The help file for auc() says: " The standard errors from auc are only valid for comparing an individual model to random assignment (i.e. AUC=.5). To compare two models to each other it is necessary to account for correlation due to the fact that they use the same test set. If you are interested in pair wise model comparisons see the Splus ROC library from Mayo clinic. auc is a much simpler function than what is available from the Splus ROC library from Mayo clinic."
>
> I did download this library but I don't have access to S-PLUS and even if supposedly the code is very similar between S-PLUS and R I still don't quite understand what is going on because I am a little bit confused what some parameters represent . For example "markers" and "status", although I think "status" represent my original data (all coded 0 and 1) and "markers" might be the probabilities obtained from my 2 models. The confusion may also steam from the fact that I don't have a medical or biological training and maybe "markers" and "status" do have a special meaning for these 2 disciplines.
>
> I will really appreciate if you can help in finding a way to compare differences in AUC.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Monica
>
>
>

Comparison of ROC areas does not have sufficient power to detect important differences of two models. See the following, for which I have R/S+ code. Likelihood ratio tests for nested models are even more powerful. -Frank

@Article{pen08eva,

   author = {Pencina, Michael J. and {D'Agostino Sr}, Ralph B. and {D'Agostino Jr}, Ralph B. and Vasan, Ramachandran S.},

   title = {Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: {From} area under the {ROC} curve to reclassification and beyond},

   journal = 	 Stat in Med,
   year = 		 2008,
   volume =		 27,
   pages =        {157-172},
   annote =		 {discrimination;model performance;AUC;C-index;risk 
prediction;biomarker;small differences in ROC area can still be very meaningful;example of insignificant test for difference in ROC areas with very significant results from new method;Yates' discrimination slope;reclassification table;limiting version of this based on whether and amount by which probabilities rise for events and lower for non-events when compare new model to old;comparing two models} }
-- 
Frank E Harrell Jr   Professor and Chair           School of Medicine
                      Department of Biostatistics   Vanderbilt University

______________________________________________
R-help_at_r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Received on Thu 17 Jul 2008 - 18:06:28 GMT

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Thu 17 Jul 2008 - 19:31:54 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help. Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.

list of date sections of archive