You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The all-in-one calls are difficult to maintain and to test. For instance all the *.formula methods are a mess. Functions such as ci or auc should not create ROC curves, and the ROC function shouldn't plot and calculate CI.
For instance, replace the following example in ?pROC:
roc(aSAH$outcome,
aSAH$s100b, percent=TRUE,
# arguments for auc
partial.auc=c(100, 90), partial.auc.correct=TRUE,
partial.auc.focus="sens",
# arguments for ci
ci=TRUE, boot.n=100, ci.alpha=0.9, stratified=FALSE,
# arguments for plot
plot=TRUE, auc.polygon=TRUE, max.auc.polygon=TRUE, grid=TRUE,
print.auc=TRUE, print.thres= "best")
The all-in-one calls are difficult to maintain and to test. For instance all the *.formula methods are a mess. Functions such as ci or auc should not create ROC curves, and the ROC function shouldn't plot and calculate CI.
For instance, replace the following example in ?pROC:
By a more modular call such as:
This will require some refactoring to add plot.auc and a plot.ci.auc; and probably several more for consistency.
In the long term, consider dropping the partial.auc arguments in ROC and have them only in auc.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: