{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreib4pmg7s4zsij7zsk66ghqnqbpzypuualthjz4ttcc5z6lt6zbv3u",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:wwyqal4cnqhuwyacdj7rqq3n/app.bsky.feed.post/3mhwrfbokgkm2"
  },
  "path": "/t/biomarker-evaluation-c-statistic-auc-and-alternatives/6956?page=2#post_38",
  "publishedAt": "2026-03-26T01:38:56.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.datamethods.org",
  "textContent": "Methodologically this interpretation is valid. My point regarding inexplicability refers to the limited clinical interpretability or practical utility. I agree with your reasoning and think your slides are great and very easy to understand.\nI would like to add that the C statistic yields the same concordance when comparing non-cases and cases whether the predicted probabilities are 0.3 and 0.7 or 0.1 and 0.9 because it only evaluates the rank order. The latter may represent better prediction as the values approach 0 and 1. . This is another reason why I find a 2% difference between two C difficult to interpret. Even disregarding costs a 2% margin can hardly be characterized as a correct improvement in prediction.",
  "title": "Biomarker evaluation - c-statistic (AUC) and alternatives"
}