title: Exact confidence interval estimation for the difference in diagnostic accuracy with three ordinal diagnostic groups.
abstract: In the cases with three ordinal diagnostic groups, the important measures of diagnostic accuracy are the volume under surface (VUS) and the partial volume under surface (PVUS) which are the extended forms of the area under curve (AUC) and the partial area under curve (PAUC). This article addresses confidence interval estimation of the difference in pairedVUSs and the difference in pairedPVUSs. To focus especially on studies with small to moderate sample sizes, we propose an approach based on the concepts of generalized inference. A Monte Carlo study demonstrates that the proposed approach generally can provide confidence intervals with reasonable coverage probabilities even at small sample sizes. The proposed approach is compared to a parametric bootstrap approach and a large sample approach through simulation. Finally, the proposed approach is illustrated via an application to a data set of blood test results of anemia patients.
authors.affiliation: Department of Biostatistics, University at Buffalo, 249 Farber Hall, 3435 Main St. Bldg. 26 Buffalo, NY 14214-3000, USA.
authors.forename: Lili
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Tian
authors.forename: Chengjie
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Xiong
authors.forename: Chin-Ying
authors.initials: CY
authors.lastname: Lai
authors.forename: Albert
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Vexler
keywords: Diagnostic accuracy; Generalized pivot; Generalized test variable; Receiver operating characteristic (ROC); curve
references.citation: Radiology. 1996 Dec;201(3):745-50
references.pmid: 8939225
references.citation: Biometrics. 2003 Sep;59(3):614-23
references.pmid: 14601762
references.citation: Am J Clin Pathol. 2001 Jan;115(1):112-8
references.pmid: 11190796
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 2000 Jul-Sep;20(3):323-31
references.pmid: 10929855
references.citation: Stat Med. 2008 May 10;27(10):1762-76
references.pmid: 17968858
references.citation: Biometrics. 1999 Sep;55(3):921-4
references.pmid: 11315029
references.citation: Biom J. 2006 Aug;48(5):745-57
references.pmid: 17094340
references.citation: Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
references.pmid: 3203132
references.citation: Biostatistics. 2008 Jul;9(3):566-76
references.pmid: 18304996
references.citation: Stat Med. 1989 Oct;8(10):1277-90
references.pmid: 2814075
references.citation: Biom J. 2007 Aug;49(5):654-64
references.pmid: 17726716
references.citation: Stat Med. 2008 Jan 30;27(2):224-42
references.pmid: 17139702
references.citation: Stat Med. 2006 Feb 15;25(3):481-93
references.pmid: 16287217
references.citation: Biom J. 2007 Aug;49(5):682-93
references.pmid: 17763377
references.citation: Biometrics. 2003 Jun;59(2):237-47
references.pmid: 12926708
references.citation: Stat Med. 2006 Apr 15;25(7):1251-73
references.pmid: 16345029
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 2001 Sep-Oct;21(5):409-17
references.pmid: 11575490
references.citation: Biometrics. 2007 Jun;63(2):603-9
references.pmid: 17688513
references.citation: Stat Med. 2002 Mar 15;21(5):701-15
references.pmid: 11870811
references.citation: Stat Methods Med Res. 1999 Jun;8(2):113-34
references.pmid: 10501649
references.citation: Biometrics. 2008 Sep;64(3):895-903
references.pmid: 18047527
references.citation: Stat Med. 2004 Nov 30;23(22):3437-49
references.pmid: 15505886
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 1999 Jan-Mar;19(1):78-89
references.pmid: 9917023
references.citation: Stat Med. 2006 Apr 15;25(7):1219-38
references.pmid: 16158400
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 1990 Oct-Dec;10(4):283-7
references.pmid: 2233158
references.citation: Stat Med. 2004 Jul 15;23(13):2125-35
references.pmid: 15211607
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997 Jan;168(1):13-7
references.pmid: 8976911
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 1989 Jul-Sep;9(3):190-5
references.pmid: 2668680