Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,100Open textbooks2Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology107Genetics and Genomics95Neuroscience110Cardiovascular Medicine105Immunology90Pharmacology99Molecular Biology100Infectious Diseases102Rare and Inherited Diseases106Clinical Research98Anatomy and Physiology542Drugs and Chemicals546
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Clinical Research›ROC Curve
Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

ROC Curve

Clinical Research · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-10-29 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 5 min read

A graphic means for assessing the ability of a screening test to discriminate between healthy and diseased persons; may also be used in other studies, e.g., distinguishing stimuli responses as to a faint stimuli or nonstimuli.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (918 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

A graphic means for assessing the ability of a screening test to discriminate between healthy and diseased persons; may also be used in other studies, e.g., distinguishing stimuli responses as to a faint stimuli or nonstimuli.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Curve, ROC; Curves, ROC; ROC Curves; Analysis, ROC; Analyses, ROC; ROC Analyses; ROC Analysis; Receiver Operating Characteristic.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Sensitivity and Specificity

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 91,002 records tagged with the MeSH heading “ROC Curve” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 32,663 of them (35.9%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 42,847 records.

Reviews account for 2,680 records (2.9%) and meta-analyses for 1,862. Randomized controlled trials number 1,174 (1.3%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 2,270 records; 2000-2009: 13,222 records; 2010-2019: 42,847 records; 2020 onward: 32,663 records2,270through 199913,2222000-200942,8472010-201932,6632020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 19992,270
2000-200913,222
2010-201942,847
2020 onward32,663
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 2.9 percent; Meta-analyses: 2.0 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 1.3 percentReviews2.9% (2,680)Meta-analyses2.0% (1,862)Randomized controlled trials1.3% (1,174)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 91,002 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews2,6802.9%
Meta-analyses1,8622.0%
Randomized controlled trials1,1741.3%

Method: PubMed query "ROC Curve"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.

Reading the evidence in clinical research

Research methods determine how much a result can be trusted. Randomized trials guard against confounding, systematic reviews and meta-analyses combine many studies, and observational designs are valuable but can show only association. Reporting standards, trial registration and pre-specified outcomes reduce bias. When reading about a method, ask what problem it is designed to solve and which problems it does not solve.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves
Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez JC, et al.
2011Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
10,654cc by
PMID 21414208 · DOI · PMC3068975
The precision-recall plot is more informative than the ROC plot when evaluating binary classifiers on imbalanced datasets
Saito T, Rehmsmeier M
2015Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
2,050cc by
PMID 25738806 · DOI · PMC4349800
Time-dependent ROC curve analysis in medical research: current methods and applications
Kamarudin AN, Cox T, Kolamunnage-Dona R
2017Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
652cc by
PMID 28388943 · DOI · PMC5384160
Synthetically enhanced: unveiling synthetic data's potential in medical imaging research
Khosravi B, Li F, Dapamede T, Rouzrokh P, Gamble CU, Trivedi HM, et al.
2024Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
36cc by
PMID 38821021 · DOI · PMC11177083

pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves [1]

Research article Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez JC, et al. · · 2011 · cited 10,654 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundReceiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves are useful tools to evaluate classifiers in biomedical and bioinformatics applications.
Closing excerpt
It is also distributed through the CRAN and CSAN public repositories, facilitating its installation.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (220 words)

BackgroundReceiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves are useful tools to evaluate classifiers in biomedical and bioinformatics applications. However, conclusions are often reached through inconsistent use or insufficient statistical analysis. To support researchers in their ROC curves analysis we developed pROC, a package for R and S+ that contains a set of tools displaying, analyzing, smoothing and comparing ROC curves in a user-friendly, object-oriented and flexible interface.ResultsWith data previously imported into the R or S+ environment, the pROC package builds ROC curves and includes functions for computing confidence intervals, statistical tests for comparing total or partial area under the curve or the operating points of different classifiers, and methods for smoothing ROC curves. Intermediary and final results are visualised in user-friendly interfaces. A case study based on published clinical and biomarker data shows how to perform a typical ROC analysis with pROC.ConclusionspROC is a package for R and S+ specifically dedicated to ROC analysis. It proposes multiple statistical tests to compare ROC curves, and in particular partial areas under the curve, allowing proper ROC interpretation. pROC is available in two versions: in the R programming language or with a graphical user interface in the S+ statistical software. It is accessible at http://expasy.org/tools/pROC/ under the GNU General Public License. It is also distributed through the CRAN and CSAN public repositories, facilitating its installation.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 21414208 · DOI · PMC3068975

The precision-recall plot is more informative than the ROC plot when evaluating binary classifiers on imbalanced datasets [2]

Research article Saito T, Rehmsmeier M · · 2015 · cited 2,050 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Binary classifiers are routinely evaluated with performance measures such as sensitivity and specificity, and performance is frequently illustrated with Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) plots.
Closing excerpt
Our findings have potential implications for the interpretation of a large number of studies that use ROC plots on imbalanced datasets.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (197 words)

Binary classifiers are routinely evaluated with performance measures such as sensitivity and specificity, and performance is frequently illustrated with Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) plots. Alternative measures such as positive predictive value (PPV) and the associated Precision/Recall (PRC) plots are used less frequently. Many bioinformatics studies develop and evaluate classifiers that are to be applied to strongly imbalanced datasets in which the number of negatives outweighs the number of positives significantly. While ROC plots are visually appealing and provide an overview of a classifier's performance across a wide range of specificities, one can ask whether ROC plots could be misleading when applied in imbalanced classification scenarios. We show here that the visual interpretability of ROC plots in the context of imbalanced datasets can be deceptive with respect to conclusions about the reliability of classification performance, owing to an intuitive but wrong interpretation of specificity. PRC plots, on the other hand, can provide the viewer with an accurate prediction of future classification performance due to the fact that they evaluate the fraction of true positives among positive predictions. Our findings have potential implications for the interpretation of a large number of studies that use ROC plots on imbalanced datasets.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 25738806 · DOI · PMC4349800

Time-dependent ROC curve analysis in medical research: current methods and applications [3]

Research article Kamarudin AN, Cox T, Kolamunnage-Dona R · · 2017 · cited 652 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundROC (receiver operating characteristic) curve analysis is well established for assessing how well a marker is capable of discriminating between individuals who experience disease onset and individuals who do not.
Closing excerpt
We have illustrated the methods in practice using currently available software and made some recommendations for future research.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (274 words)

BackgroundROC (receiver operating characteristic) curve analysis is well established for assessing how well a marker is capable of discriminating between individuals who experience disease onset and individuals who do not. The classical (standard) approach of ROC curve analysis considers event (disease) status and marker value for an individual as fixed over time, however in practice, both the disease status and marker value change over time. Individuals who are disease-free earlier may develop the disease later due to longer study follow-up, and also their marker value may change from baseline during follow-up. Thus, an ROC curve as a function of time is more appropriate. However, many researchers still use the standard ROC curve approach to determine the marker capability ignoring the time dependency of the disease status or the marker.MethodsWe comprehensively review currently proposed methodologies of time-dependent ROC curves which use single or longitudinal marker measurements, aiming to provide clarity in each methodology, identify software tools to carry out such analysis in practice and illustrate several applications of the methodology. We have also extended some methods to incorporate a longitudinal marker and illustrated the methodologies using a sequential dataset from the Mayo Clinic trial in primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) of the liver.ResultsFrom our methodological review, we have identified 18 estimation methods of time-dependent ROC curve analyses for censored event times and three other methods can only deal with non-censored event times. Despite the considerable numbers of estimation methods, applications of the methodology in clinical studies are still lacking.ConclusionsThe value of time-dependent ROC curve methods has been re-established. We have illustrated the methods in practice using currently available software and made some recommendations for future research.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 28388943 · DOI · PMC5384160

Synthetically enhanced: unveiling synthetic data's potential in medical imaging research [4]

Research article Khosravi B, Li F, Dapamede T, Rouzrokh P, Gamble CU, Trivedi HM, et al. · · 2024 · cited 36 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundChest X-rays (CXR) are essential for diagnosing a variety of conditions, but when used on new populations, model generalizability issues limit their efficacy.
Closing excerpt
Gichoya is a 2022 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Program and declares support from RSNA Health Disparities grant (#EIHD2204), Lacuna Fund (#67), Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, NIH (NIBIB) MIDRC grant under contracts 75N92020C00008 and 75N92020C00021, and NHLBI Award Number R01HL167811.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (227 words)

BackgroundChest X-rays (CXR) are essential for diagnosing a variety of conditions, but when used on new populations, model generalizability issues limit their efficacy. Generative AI, particularly denoising diffusion probabilistic models (DDPMs), offers a promising approach to generating synthetic images, enhancing dataset diversity. This study investigates the impact of synthetic data supplementation on the performance and generalizability of medical imaging research.MethodsThe study employed DDPMs to create synthetic CXRs conditioned on demographic and pathological characteristics from the CheXpert dataset. These synthetic images were used to supplement training datasets for pathology classifiers, with the aim of improving their performance. The evaluation involved three datasets (CheXpert, MIMIC-CXR, and Emory Chest X-ray) and various experiments, including supplementing real data with synthetic data, training with purely synthetic data, and mixing synthetic data with external datasets. Performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC).FindingsAdding synthetic data to real datasets resulted in a notable increase in AUROC values (up to 0.02 in internal and external test sets with 1000% supplementation, p-value InterpretationSynthetic data supplementation significantly improves the performance and generalizability of pathology classifiers in medical imaging.FundingDr. Gichoya is a 2022 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Program and declares support from RSNA Health Disparities grant (#EIHD2204), Lacuna Fund (#67), Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, NIH (NIBIB) MIDRC grant under contracts 75N92020C00008 and 75N92020C00021, and NHLBI Award Number R01HL167811.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 38821021 · DOI · PMC11177083

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article Receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnostic test assessment [5]
    Mandrekar JN · J Thorac Oncol · 2010 · cited 3,006 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Understanding diagnostic tests 3: Receiver operating characteristic curves [6]
    Akobeng AK · Acta Paediatr · 2007 · cited 1,364 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Principles and practical application of the receiver-operating characteristic analysis for diagnostic tests [7]
    Greiner M, Pfeiffer D, Smith RD · Prev Vet Med · 2000 · cited 1,289 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Receiver-operating characteristic analysis for evaluating diagnostic tests and predictive models [8]
    Zou KH, O'Malley AJ, Mauri L · Circulation · 2007 · cited 863 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve: practical review for radiologists [9]
    Park SH, Goo JM, Jo CH · Korean J Radiol · 2004 · cited 540 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Statistical evaluation of prognostic versus diagnostic models: beyond the ROC curve [10]
    Cook NR · Clin Chem · 2008 · cited 530 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez JC, et al.. pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. . 2011. PMID 21414208 · DOI · PMC3068975
  2. Saito T, Rehmsmeier M. The precision-recall plot is more informative than the ROC plot when evaluating binary classifiers on imbalanced datasets. . 2015. PMID 25738806 · DOI · PMC4349800
  3. Kamarudin AN, Cox T, Kolamunnage-Dona R. Time-dependent ROC curve analysis in medical research: current methods and applications. . 2017. PMID 28388943 · DOI · PMC5384160
  4. Khosravi B, Li F, Dapamede T, Rouzrokh P, Gamble CU, Trivedi HM, et al.. Synthetically enhanced: unveiling synthetic data's potential in medical imaging research. . 2024. PMID 38821021 · DOI · PMC11177083
  5. Mandrekar JN. Receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnostic test assessment. J Thorac Oncol. 2010. PMID 20736804 · DOI
  6. Akobeng AK. Understanding diagnostic tests 3: Receiver operating characteristic curves. Acta Paediatr. 2007. PMID 17376185 · DOI
  7. Greiner M, Pfeiffer D, Smith RD. Principles and practical application of the receiver-operating characteristic analysis for diagnostic tests. Prev Vet Med. 2000. PMID 10802332 · DOI
  8. Zou KH, O'Malley AJ, Mauri L. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis for evaluating diagnostic tests and predictive models. Circulation. 2007. PMID 17283280 · DOI
  9. Park SH, Goo JM, Jo CH. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve: practical review for radiologists. Korean J Radiol. 2004. PMID 15064554 · DOI · PMC2698108
  10. Cook NR. Statistical evaluation of prognostic versus diagnostic models: beyond the ROC curve. Clin Chem. 2008. PMID 18024533 · DOI

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-10-29.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Sensitivity and SpecificityClinical Research
  • Discriminant AnalysisClinical Research
  • Multivariate AnalysisClinical Research
  • Survival AnalysisClinical Research
  • Cluster AnalysisClinical Research
  • Spatial AnalysisClinical Research

All 98 articles in Clinical Research →

At a glance

91,002
PubMed records on this heading
36%
published since 2020
2,680
review articles
1,174
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-10-29; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Sensitivity and SpecificityClinical Research
  • Discriminant AnalysisClinical Research
  • Multivariate AnalysisClinical Research
  • Survival AnalysisClinical Research
  • Cluster AnalysisClinical Research

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Legal · Support