Tests of association under misclassification: Application to histological sampling in oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subjects in tumour studies are often misclassified with respect to histologic features that are not routinely recorded in diagnostic reports and that display heterogeneity within tumours. Pathologic analysis of the tumours may miss the feature of interest if the pathologist was not alerted to detail the microscopic feature of interest or if it is not present in the selected specimens. In this setting, only the subjects for whom the outcome is not found are potentially misclassified. Analyses of associations between the observed, potentially misclassified, outcome and a second outcome are invalid if the probability of misclassification depends on the second outcome. Three natural tests of association based on the observed data depend on different numbers of nuisance parameters. Most promising is a test based on the ratio of proportions of the observed feature. We illustrate this test using a study of the association of imaging parameters with genetic features in subjects with oligodendroglioma, a common brain tumour. In this study, calcification, a feature related to the imaging parameters, was potentially misclassified as not present.
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 | 0.461 | 0.756 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".