Abstract
Observational case-control studies for biomarker discovery in cancer studies often collect data that are sampled separately from the case and control populations. We present an analysis of the bias in the estimation of the precision of classifiers designed on separately sampled data. The analysis consists of both theoretical and numerical results, which show that classifier precision estimates can display strong bias under separating sampling, with the bias magnitude depending on the difference between the true case prevalence in the population and the sample prevalence in the data. We show that this bias is systematic in the sense that it cannot be reduced by increasing sample size. If information about the true case prevalence is available from public health records, then a modified precision estimator that uses the known prevalence displays smaller bias, which can in fact be reduced to zero as sample size increases under regularity conditions on the classification algorithm. The accuracy of the theoretical analysis and the performance of the precision estimators under separate sampling are confirmed by numerical experiments using synthetic and real data from published observational case-control studies. The results with real data confirmed that under separately sampled data, the usual estimator produces larger, ie, more optimistic, precision estimates than the estimator using the true prevalence value.