Logistic Kernel: A Sensitive Biomarker for Kidney Cancer by ROC
Curve
JAVARIA AHMAD KHAN, ATIF AKBAR
Department of Statistics
Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan,
PAKISTAN
Abstract: The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is a well-known graphical method to
describe the accuracy of a diagnostic test. In this paper, Logistic kernel is proposed with its optimal
bandwidth and mean squared error. To observe the performance of our proposed kernel estimator,
the comparison is made with a Gaussian kernel by using different bandwidths and ROC curve and
the area under the curve (AUC) are calculated. For illustration, Kidney cancer data is used and the
logistic kernel is found more pragmatic and sensitive biomarker to detect Kidney cancer. The
outstanding performance of logistic kernel is also observed in simulation studies and we recommend
using nonparametric ROC curve using logistic kernel.
Key-Words: nonparametric ROC curve, AUC, symmetrical kernel, Logistic Kernel, Hemoglobin
Level, Fibrinogen Concentration
Received: June 9, 2022. Revised: August 22, 2023. Accepted: September 16, 2023. Published: October 16, 2023.
1 Introduction
In diagnostic medicine, it is important to assess the
accuracy of a diagnostic test in discriminating
diseased patients from healthy ones. For this
purpose, the receiver operating characteristic
(ROC) curve is commonly used to describe the
performance of a diagnostic test. ROC analysis was
first introduced by [1], although the ROC curve
only gained its popularity in the 1970s [2,3].
When the response of the test is binary, the
accuracy of the test is usually measured by its
sensitivity and specificity. When the response of
the test is continuous (i.e. blood pressure provides
continuous measurements), its accuracy is best
measured by the receiver operating characteristic
(ROC) curve, which is a plot of sensitivity versus
1- specificity [4]. However, applications of ROC
curve are recently extended to many other fields
like economics and data mining. More
comprehensive review of the literature about the
ROC curves and their possible applications can be
found, in [47]. Suppose that the independent real
random variables X and Y denote the test score
from healthy (= 0) and diseased (= 1) patients,
(defined using a gold standard) respectively.
Without loss of generality, and for an appropriate
cut-off point c R, the test result is positive if it is
greater than c and negative otherwise. Let F and G
be completely unknown distribution functions of
the random variables X and Y, respectively. The
sensitivity of the test is defined as the SE(t) = 1
G(t), which is the probability that a truly diseased
individual has a positive test result. Similarly, the
specificity of the test is given by SP(t) = F(t) and
describes the probability that a truly non diseased
individual has a negative test result. The receiver
operating characteristic (ROC) curve is defined as
a plot of SE(t) versus 1SP(t) for −∞ c , or
equivalently as a plot of
󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇜󰇟󰇠 (1)
Existing Methods
To estimate ROC curve, mostly methods based
on parametric or semi-parametric models [812].
Although the empirical ROC curve is very simple
and popular, but estimator has some drawbacks; its
obvious weakness is being a step function. These
methods are sensitive to the assumptions and can
only provide a limited range of distributional
forms. Moreover, such methods may suffer from
large variability, particularly for small sample sizes
[1315]. To overcome these problems
nonparametric methods are proposed [13]. The
commonly used nonparametric estimator is the
empirical ROC curve of the form
󰇛󰇜
󰇛󰇜󰇟󰇠 (2)
International Journal of Applied Sciences & Development
DOI: 10.37394/232029.2023.2.13
Javaria Ahmad Khan, Atif Akbar
E-ISSN: 2945-0454
120
Volume 2, 2023
where
 and respectively denote the
empirical quantile function and the empirical
cumulative distribution function of the samples
respectively [16,17]. Asymptotic properties of this
estimator were studied by [16], they showed that,
under some basic assumptions for distribution
functions, F and G, converges to the true ROC
curve uniformly on [0, 1] with probability one. But
it is also not continuous and not very accurate for
small sample sizes. Other methods are needed to
obtain a smooth estimator of the ROC curve. One
of the ways, to obtain a continuous estimator of
R(t) is to use the kernel smoothing method
proposed by [18]. [13], using kernel estimates
directly for F and G, obtained a smooth ROC curve
estimator given by
󰇛󰇜󰇡
󰇛󰇜󰇢󰇟󰇠 (3)
[15] extended the idea of [19] and constructed a
continuous and easily invertible estimator of the
distribution function by using order statistics. They
claimed that this idea leads to obtain a continuous
and strictly increasing nonparametric estimator of
the ROC curve, which is in fact the smoothed
version of the empirical ROC curve. To gain
invariant under non-decreasing data
transformations, [20] proposed the following ROC
curve estimator
󰇛󰇜
󰇡󰇛󰇜
󰇢
 , 󰇟󰇠
(4)
where h > 0 is a bandwidth parameter and
denotes the empirical distribution function of the
sample . [21] adopted Bernstein polynomials to
construct the ROC curve estimator and studied the
consistency rate of this estimator. They proposed
the following Bernstein estimator of order m > 0
for the ROC curve:
󰇛󰇜󰇡
󰇢󰇛󰇜

󰇟󰇠 (5)
In literature, further work has been done to
examine the effect of smoothing parameter, with
symmetric kernels (usually Bi-weight [18] and
Epanechnikov kernel [4,20]. In this paper, we will
examine the performance of asymmetrical kernel
(Logistic kernel) against symmetrical kernel
(Gaussian kernel), with different bandwidths.
The rest of this paper is organized as following. In
Section 2, theoretical results are shown. Section 3,
discusses different methods of bandwidth. In
Section 4 we report the results of simulation studies
and compare the efficiency of the nonparametric
ROC estimator using symmetric kernel with
nonparametric ROC estimator using asymmetrical
kernel. In Section 5 the performance is compared
on basis of a real data set and section 6 concludes.
2 Development of Logistic kernel
estimator
Let be a random sample from a
distribution with an unknown probability density
function f which has support on -∞, ∞.
Representation of pdf of Logistic 󰇛󰇜 is
󰇛󰇜󰇡
󰇢
󰇧󰇡
󰇢󰇨 (6)
where . The mean and variance of T
are equal to and
, respectively.
As, and
, the class of Logistic kernels
considered is;
󰇧
󰇨󰇛󰇜󰇭
󰇮
󰇭
󰇮
 (7)
Where, is bandwidth satisfying the condition that
and  as . If a random variable
X has a pdf, 󰇧
󰇨󰇛󰇜, then 󰇛󰇜 and
󰇛󰇜
.
The corresponding estimator of pdf is
󰆹󰇛󰇜󰇧
󰇨󰇛󰇜
 (8)
Such transformation technique is firstly used by
[22] for developing asymmetrical kernels. Some
others also follow the Chen’s idea. Here, we used
such technique to develop a symmetrical kernel.
The bias of proposed Logistic estimator is given
by;
󰆹󰇛󰇜
󰆒󰆒󰇛󰇜
󰇛󰇜,
(9)
and variance of the proposed Logistic estimator is
as follows;
󰆹󰇛󰇜

󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇜
(10)
International Journal of Applied Sciences & Development
DOI: 10.37394/232029.2023.2.13
Javaria Ahmad Khan, Atif Akbar
E-ISSN: 2945-0454
121
Volume 2, 2023
Mean squared errors for Logistic kernel estimator
is 󰆹󰇛󰇜󰆹󰇛󰇜
󰆹󰇛󰇜
󰇛󰇜
 󰇛󰇜

and
󰇛󰇜󰇣󰇛󰇛󰇜󰇜
󰇛󰇛󰇜󰇜󰇤
(12)
The smooth version of and , after smoothing
the diseased and healthy data by Logistic kernel;
will be used for construction of ROC curve in
Section 4 and 5.
3 Bandwidth selection
This section deals with selection of the smoothing
parameter (h), appearing in (1). Selection of h is a
critical issue. Lots of bandwidth selection methods
are available in literature but although no selection
method performed uniformly best in all cases. Here
we consider the following bandwidths and examine
the performance with our proposed method.
3.1 Normal scale rule (NSR)
The idea of normal scale rule or rule of thumb first
coined by [23] and latter discussed by [24].
󰇛󰇜
(13)
3.2 Generalized cross validation (GCV)
This method was proposed by [25] and defined as
󰆹󰇛󰇜
󰇝󰇛󰇜󰇞, (14)
where is a matrix and 󰆹
󰆹󰇛󰇜
󰆹󰇛󰇜
󰆹󰇛󰇜
,
with
󰇝
 󰇛󰇜󰇞󰇝󰆒󰆒󰇛󰇜󰇞
.
3.3 Least square cross validation (LSCV)
[26] introduced the method known as unbiased
cross validation which is closely related to the idea
of [27] and [25] GCV. Least square cross
validation or unbiased cross validation (LSCV)
also discussed by [28] and [29].
󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇛󰇜󰇜

󰇛󰇜
󰇛󰇜 󰇛󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇜


󰇛󰇜󰇛
󰇜 (15)
3.4 Altman and Leger plug-in (AL)
[30] elucidated the leave-one-out bandwidth of
[31]. They showed that their leave-one-out
bandwidth method provided results are
asymptotically equivalent to leaving none out.
Additionally, simulations showed that
unfortunately [31] method do not work in practice,
even for sample size of 1000. On other side, this
bandwidth performed well even for size 10 and not
far from the finite sample bandwidth.
Their proposed bandwidth is;
󰇛󰇜

(16)
3.5 Direct plug in method (DPI)
The DPI bandwidth selection method is modified
form of [32] method. They claimed that their
method is superior in sense of theoretical
performance, computational advantages and
showed best performance in simulation studies.
Their DPI bandwidth is given below;
󰇣󰇛󰇜
󰇛󰇜
󰇛󰇜󰇤
(17)
where 󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇜
.
3.6 Polansky and Baker plug-in (PB)
[33] presented a multistage type of optimal
bandwidth and also derived its asymptotic
properties. They described a b-stage estimator of
bandwidth in 3- step procedure in which they
presented bandwidth as
󰇣󰇛󰇜
󰇛󰇜
󰇛󰇜󰇤
(18)
In the following sections, we are initially going to
compare newly proposed kernel with Gaussian
kernel to show the outstanding performance of our
kernel on basis of AMSE for density estimation.
Then we use the Logistic kernel for construction of
ROC curve and calculation of AUC by using
simulated and kidney cancer data.
4 Simulation
To examine the performance of proposed kernel
estimator for density estimation, we conduct a
simulation study with 1000 replications. For this
purpose, data is generated through 󰇛󰇜 and
density is estimated through Gaussian and Logistic
kernel with 400 gird points. Comparison is made
on the basis of average mean square error (AMSE)
with different sample sizes and bandwidths; as
discussed in Section 3.
International Journal of Applied Sciences & Development
DOI: 10.37394/232029.2023.2.13
Javaria Ahmad Khan, Atif Akbar
E-ISSN: 2945-0454
122
Volume 2, 2023
Table 1. AMSE by Logistic and Gaussian kernel
AMSE by Logistic Kernel
n\h
NSR
25
0.0075
50
0.0061
100
0.0049
200
0.0039
500
0.0029
GCV
25
0.0306
50
0.0244
100
0.0212
200
0.0193
500
0.0176
LSCV
25
0.0088
0.0242
50
0.0067
100
0.0052
200
0.0040
500
0.0029
AL
25
0.0074
50
0.0052
100
0.0037
200
0.0026
500
0.0016
DPI
25
0.0067
50
0.0057
100
0.0046
200
0.0037
500
0.0029
PB
25
0.0072
50
0.0053
100
0.0039
200
0.0029
500
0.0018
From Table 1, it can be observed that performance
of Logistic kernel is better than Gaussian in all
cases. Results are consistent with both kernels, as
AMSEs are decreased as sample size increased, but
performance of logistic kernel is outstanding.
Now, to investigate the performance of our
proposed ROC curve estimator a simulation study
is performed with 500 replications for the limited
sample size (m=n=20) to calculate the area under
the curve (AUC) [34];
󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇜
(19)
Four different combinations of the distribution
functions are considered for X and Y. These types
of combinations are also considered by [15, 20,
21], in which they used Normal and Logistic
distribution to generate data. These combinations
are given as;
󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇜;
󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇜;
󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇜;
International Journal of Applied Sciences & Development
DOI: 10.37394/232029.2023.2.13
Javaria Ahmad Khan, Atif Akbar
E-ISSN: 2945-0454
123
Volume 2, 2023
󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇜.
We also calculate AUC by using symmetrical
(Gaussian) kernel for comparison with above
mentioned bandwidths. Figure 1 to 4 present ROC
curves of Gaussian and logistic kernels.
Table 2. AUC of kernels with different bandwidths
Kernels/Bandwidths
Logistic
Gaussian
Model 1
󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇜
NSR
0.5124
0.488
GCV
0.5259
0.5181
UBCV
0.5428
0.5054
AL
0.7124
0.5451
DPI
0.5181
0.5156
PB
0.5187
0.498
Model 2
󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇜
NSR
0.5278
0.4872
GCV
0.5097
0.4754
UBCV
0.5421
0.5219
AL
0.5844
0.5222
DPI
0.5298
0.5179
PB
0.5285
0.5180
Model 3
󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇜
NSR
0.5138
0.5072
GCV
0.5071
0.4986
UBCV
0.5389
0.4939
AL
0.5334
0.4818
DPI
0.5243
0.4977
PB
0.5273
0.5096
Model 4
󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇜
NSR
0.5273
0.5056
GCV
0.5181
0.5165
UBCV
0.5282
0.5078
AL
0.5054
0.4814
DPI
0.5270
0.4941
PB
0.5160
0.5102
International Journal of Applied Sciences & Development
DOI: 10.37394/232029.2023.2.13
Javaria Ahmad Khan, Atif Akbar
E-ISSN: 2945-0454
124
Volume 2, 2023
International Journal of Applied Sciences & Development
DOI: 10.37394/232029.2023.2.13
Javaria Ahmad Khan, Atif Akbar
E-ISSN: 2945-0454
125
Volume 2, 2023
International Journal of Applied Sciences & Development
DOI: 10.37394/232029.2023.2.13
Javaria Ahmad Khan, Atif Akbar
E-ISSN: 2945-0454
126
Volume 2, 2023
International Journal of Applied Sciences & Development
DOI: 10.37394/232029.2023.2.13
Javaria Ahmad Khan, Atif Akbar
E-ISSN: 2945-0454
127
Volume 2, 2023
International Journal of Applied Sciences & Development
DOI: 10.37394/232029.2023.2.13
Javaria Ahmad Khan, Atif Akbar
E-ISSN: 2945-0454
128
Volume 2, 2023
Figures 1 to 4 display the results of the
simulations for the sample sizes m = n = 20 for
different considered models. Every figure
contains six plots corresponding to six different
bandwidths as discussed in Section 3 and every
single plot compares the considered ROC curve
estimators. The results indicate that, for this small
sample size, the proposed use of kernel estimator
is competitive with another estimator. In the
problem of estimation of the ROC curve it
performs better than Gaussian kernel.
Here, every model is plotted with each considered
bandwidth to examine the influence of bandwidth
on distributions. It can be observed from Figure 1
to Figure 4, that no bandwidth is unanimously the
best. In some cases, Altman and Leger Plug-in
(AL) bandwidth performs the best and rest of
models perform good with unbiased cross
validation bandwidth (UBCV). This can be
inspected from Table 2, which provides the AUC
of those models (which are computed by 500
replications).
A study is conducted by using same models,
where we examined the performance of each
bandwidth at a same time, with 500 replications.
Those findings are not included due to same
results, where performance of AL and UBCV is
better than the other bandwidths.
5 Example: Diagnostic for
Kidney Cancer
To illustrate our proposed technique, we apply it
on real dataset. The dataset comes from clinical
study, by a research team led by Dr. Krzysztof
Tupikowski from Department of Urology and
Oncological Urology, Wroclaw Medical
University, Poland, performed from November
2008 to August 2011. One investigated the
efficacy of combined treatment of interferon
alpha and metronomic cyclophosphamide in
patients with metastatic kidney cancer not
eligible for tyrosine kinase inhibitors treatment
with various negative prognostic factors for
survival. One of the secondary goals of the study
was to assess if there are any predictive factors
for response to this novel combination treatment.
The data set contains presence (1) or absence (0)
of clinical response (CR) observed at 24-th week
of treatment, hemoglobin level (HL) and serum
fibrinogen concentration (FC) of 31 patients
treated per protocol. Missing data are denoted by
x. Low HL has been previously associated with
short survival and poor response to treatment in
disseminated disease [35]. High FC is examined
as a negative predictor for response to treatment
in metastatic kidney cancer patients for the first
time.
Table 3. AUC of kernels with different
bandwidths for real data
Logistic
Gaussian
UBCV
HL
0.9969
0.6534
FC
0.8736
0.5602
AL
HL
0.9115
0.6534
FC
0.7631
0.5602
This dataset is already used by [4,15,20] and [21].
Table 3 represents the AUC by using proposed
and symmetric kernel. The estimators of the ROC
curves for HL (left) and FC (right) as the
predictive factors (positive and negative,
respectively) are plotted in Figure 5, with AL and
UBCV bandwidth due to better performance in
simulation study.
In the ROC curve analysis of HL and FC mean of
their kernel estimated values are used as cut-off
points for both Logistic and Gaussian kernel for
predicting kidney cancer. It can be examined that
for this data Gaussian kernel is immune of
bandwidth impact but use of Logistic kernel
provides different AUC with different bandwidth.
Furthermore, there are significant differences in
the area under the curve between Gaussian and
Logistic kernel which may indicate that the
diagnostic validity of the Logistic is increased as
compared to Gaussian kernel for both HL and FC.
International Journal of Applied Sciences & Development
DOI: 10.37394/232029.2023.2.13
Javaria Ahmad Khan, Atif Akbar
E-ISSN: 2945-0454
129
Volume 2, 2023
6 Conclusion
In this study, we have developed a logistic kernel
estimator with its MSE and optimal bandwidth.
Then we show that our proposed kernel performs
better than Gaussian kernel. Further, we have
provided an important application of the new
proposed kernel. We used Logistic kernel in
generating ROC curve and calculating AUC. For
this purpose, we considered a hemoglobin levels
(HL) and serum fibrinogen concentration (FC),
data as an indicator of kidney cancer. As we
mentioned, in literature different researchers
utilizes this data by using nonparametric ROC
curve estimation method with symmetric
(Gaussian) kernel. We showed that newly
proposed kernel not only performed well for
density estimation but also exhibit more rigid
actions for indicating Kidney cancer.
This work can be extended for further fields of
life. Because not only density estimation, ROC
curve has also a wide application. For example;
in environmental science density estimation is
used to track animals where they spend time and
ROC curve can be applied for qualitative
prediction. Similarly, both have wide application
in engineering, agriculture, hydrology and others.
References:
[1] Lusted LB, Logical Analysis in Roentgen
Diagnosis: Memorial Fund Lecture,
Radiology, Vol.74, No.2, 1960, pp. 178
193.
[2] Zangiacomi E, Louzada-Neto F,
Braganca B, A Curva ROC Para Testes
Diagn´osticos, Cadernos Sa´ude
Coletiva, Rio de Janeiro, Vol.11, No.1,
2003, pp. 731.
[3] Zhou XH, McClish DK, Obuchowski
NA, Statistical Methods in Diagnostic
Medicine, John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
[4] Zhou XH, Harezlak J, Comparison of
Bandwidth Selection Methods for Kernel
Smoothing of ROC Curves, Statistics in
Medicine, Vol.21, No.14, 2002, pp.
20452055.
[5] Swets JA, Form of Empirical ROCs in
Discrimination and Diagnostic Tasks:
Implications for Theory and
Measurement of Performance,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol.99, No.2,
1986, pp. 181.
[6] Pepe MS, The Statistical Evaluation of
Medical Tests for Classification and
Prediction, Oxford university press,
2003.
International Journal of Applied Sciences & Development
DOI: 10.37394/232029.2023.2.13
Javaria Ahmad Khan, Atif Akbar
E-ISSN: 2945-0454
130
Volume 2, 2023
[7] Krzanowski WJ, Hand DJ, ROC Curves
for Continuous Data, Crc Press, 2009.
[8] Zweig MH, Campbell G, Receiver-
Operating Characteristic (ROC) Plots: A
Fundamental Evaluation Tool in Clinical
Medicine, Clinical Chemistry, Vol.39,
No.4, 1993, pp. 561577.
[9] Pepe MS, An Interpretation for The ROC
Curve and Inference Using GLM
Procedures, Biometrics, Vol.56, No.2,
2000, pp. 352359.
[10] Zou KH, Hall W, Two
Transformation Models for Estimating
An ROC Curve Derived from
Continuous Data, Journal of Applied
Statistics, Vol.27, No.5, 2000, pp. 621
631.
[11] Qin J, Zhang B, Using Logistic
Regression Procedures for Estimating
Receiver Operating Characteristic
Curves, Biometrika, Vol.90, No.3, 2003,
pp. 585596.
[12] Davidov O, Nov Y, Improving
An Estimator of Hsieh and Turnbull for
The Binormal ROC Curve, Journal of
Statistical Planning and Inference,
Vol.142, No.4, 2012, pp. 872877.
[13] Lloyd CJ, Using Smoothed
Receiver Operating Characteristic
Curves to Summarize and Compare
Diagnostic Systems, Journal of the
American Statistical Association,
Vol.93, No.444, 1998, pp. 13561364.
[14] Lloyd CJ, Yong Z, Kernel
Estimators of The ROC Curve Are Better
Than Empirical, Statistics & Probability
Letters, Vol.44, No.3, 1999, pp. 221
228.
[15] Jokiel-Rokita A, Pulit M,
Nonparametric Estimation of The ROC
Curve Based on Smoothed Empirical
Distribution Functions, Statistics and
Computing, Vol.23, No.6, 2013, pp. 703
712.
[16] Hsieh F, Turnbull BW,
Nonparametric and Semiparametric
Estimation of The Receiver Operating
Characteristic Curve, The Annals of
Statistics, Vol.24, No.1, 1996, pp. 2540.
[17] Bowyer K, Kranenburg C,
Dougherty S, Edge Detector Evaluation
Using Empirical ROC Curves, Computer
Vision and Image Understanding,
Vol.84, No.1, 2001, pp. 77103.
[18] Zou KH, Hall WJ, Shapiro DE,
Smooth Non-Parametric Receiver
Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curves
for Continuous Diagnostic Tests,
Statistics in Medicine, Vol.16, No.19,
1997, pp. 21432156.
[19] Zielinski R, Kernel Estimators
and The Dvoretzky-Kiefer-Wolfowitz
Inequality, Applicationes Mathematicae,
Vol.34, No.4, 2007, pp. 401.
[20] Pulit M, A New Method of
Kernel-Smoothing Estimation of The
ROC Curve, Metrika, Vol.79, No.5,
2016, pp. 603634.
[21] Wang X, Song L, Sun L, et al,
Nonparametric Estimation of The ROC
Curve Based on The Bernstein
Polynomial, Journal of Statistical
Planning and Inference, Vol.203, 2019,
pp. 3956.
[22] Chen SX, Beta Kernel
Smoothers for Regression Curves,
Statistica Sinica, Vol.10, 2000, pp. 73
91.
[23] Deheuvels, P, Estimation
Nonparametrique De La Densite Par
Histogrammes Qeneralises, Revue de
statistique appliquée, Vol.25, No.3,
1977, pp. 5-42.
[24] Silverman B, Density
Estimation, Chapman Hall, London,
1986.
[25] Craven P, Wahba G, Smoothing
Noisy Data with Spline Functions,
Numerische mathematik, Vol.31, No.4,
1978, pp. 377403.
[26] Scott DW, Terrell GR, Biased
and Unbiased Cross-Validation in
Density Estimation, Journal of The
American Statistical Association,
Vol.82, No.400, 1987, pp. 11311146.
[27] Scott DW, Factor LE, Monte
Carlo Study of three Data Based
Nonparametric Probability Density
Estimators, Journal of American
statistical association, Vol.76, 1981, pp.
9-15.
International Journal of Applied Sciences & Development
DOI: 10.37394/232029.2023.2.13
Javaria Ahmad Khan, Atif Akbar
E-ISSN: 2945-0454
131
Volume 2, 2023
[28] Bowman AW, An Alternative
Method of Cross-Validation for The
Smoothing of Density Estimates,
Biometrika, Vol.71, pp. 353-360.
[29] Rudemo M, 1982, Empirical
Choice of Histogram and Kernel Density
Estimators, Scandinavian Journal of
Statistics, Vol.9, 1984, pp. 65-78.
[30] Altman N, Leger C, Bandwidth
Selection for Kernel Distribution
Function Estimation, Journal of
Statistical Planning and Inference,
Vol.46, No.2, 1995, pp. 195214.
[31] Sarda P, Smoothing Parameter
Selection for Smooth Distribution
Functions, Journal of statistical planning
and inference, Vol.35, 1993, pp. 65-75.
[32] Park BU, Marron JS,
Comparison of Data-Driven Bandwidth
Selectors, Journal of the American
Statistical Association, Vol.85, No.409,
1990, pp. 6672.
[33] Polansky AM, Baker ER,
Multistage Plug-In Bandwidth Selection
for Kernel Distribution Function
Estimates, Journal of Statistical
Computation and Simulation, Vol.65,
No.1-4, 2000, pp. 6380.
[34] DeLong ER, DeLong DM,
Clarke-Pearson DL, Comparing The
Areas Under Two or More Correlated
Receiver Operating Characteristic
Curves: A Nonparametric Approach,
Biometrics, 1988, pp. 837845.
[35] Tonini G, Fratto ME, Imperatori
M, et al., Predictive Factors of Response
to Treatment in Patients with Metastatic
Renal Cell Carcinoma: New Evidence,
Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy,
Vol.11, No.6, 2011, pp. 921930.
Author Contributions:
Javaria Ahmad Khan: conceived the idea,
developed the kernel, programming, graph making,
writing, performed the computations and final
approval of the version to be published. Atif Akbar:
editing, proof reading and final approval for
publication.
International Journal of Applied Sciences & Development
DOI: 10.37394/232029.2023.2.13
Javaria Ahmad Khan, Atif Akbar
E-ISSN: 2945-0454
132
Volume 2, 2023
Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a
Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself
No funding was received for conducting this study.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare
that are relevant to the content of this article.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
_US