MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1895369562 · doi:10.1111/rssc.12122

Comparing Two Binary Diagnostic Tests with Repeated Measurements

2015· article· en· W1895369562 on OpenAlexafffund
Stefan Steiner, Oana Danila, Cecilia A. Cotton, Daniel E. Severn, Robert J. MacKay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMalaria Research and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsStatisticsBinary dataEstimatorMathematicsBinary numberCorrelationGold standard (test)Maximum likelihoodPopulationMedicineArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary We compare two binary diagnostic tests when each subject is measured more than once with each test and with a gold standard. We introduce a new model that allows the correlation between two measurements on a single subject by the same test to be different from the correlation between two measurements by different tests. We show that moment estimators of the population parameters for the mean sensitivities and specificities are virtually identical to the maximum likelihood estimates from our random-effects model. We apply the model to data comparing two rapid malaria tests and provide guidance for choosing the number of subjects and repeated measurements.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.328
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.328
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics)Same topicMalaria Research and ControlFrench-language works237,207