{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiatadiftlvrkkg7b4wprm64v7qaktxt7utujfa2dwnbgm2awc2nxa",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:wwyqal4cnqhuwyacdj7rqq3n/app.bsky.feed.post/3mepacljj4kf2"
  },
  "path": "/t/biomarker-evaluation-c-statistic-auc-and-alternatives/6956?page=2#post_26",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-12T20:33:47.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.datamethods.org",
  "tags": [
    "https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001401"
  ],
  "textContent": "Published yesterday in Circulation: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001401\nIt’s an AHA Scientific Statement: _“Criteria to Assess the Predictive and Clinical Utility of Novel Models, Biomarkers, and Tools for Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association”_\n\nI am wondering, why the “changes in the C-statistic” is again highlighted as well as “Categorical NRI […] at event rate […]” and in the whole statement there is not even one sentence about Likelihood ratio importance??",
  "title": "Biomarker evaluation - c-statistic (AUC) and alternatives"
}