Development of a diagnostic test based on multiple continuous biomarkers with an imperfect reference test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ignoring the fact that the reference test used to establish the discriminative properties of a combination of diagnostic biomarkers is imperfect can lead to a biased estimate of the diagnostic accuracy of the combination. In this paper, we propose a Bayesian latent-class mixture model to select a combination of biomarkers that maximizes the area under the ROC curve (AUC), while taking into account the imperfect nature of the reference test. In particular, a method for specification of the prior for the mixture component parameters is developed that allows controlling the amount of prior information provided for the AUC. The properties of the model are evaluated by using a simulation study and an application to real data from Alzheimer's disease research. In the simulation study, 100 data sets are simulated for sample sizes ranging from 100 to 600 observations, with a varying correlation between biomarkers. The inclusion of an informative as well as a flat prior for the diagnostic accuracy of the reference test is investigated. In the real-data application, the proposed model was compared with the generally used logistic-regression model that ignores the imperfectness of the reference test. Conditional on the selected sample size and prior distributions, the simulation study results indicate satisfactory performance of the model-based estimates. In particular, the obtained average estimates for all parameters are close to the true values. For the real-data application, AUC estimates for the proposed model are substantially higher than those from the 'traditional' logistic-regression model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".