A Bayesian approach to simultaneously adjusting for verification and reference standard bias in diagnostic test studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Verification bias arises in diagnostic test evaluation studies when the results from a first test are verified by a reference test only in a non-representative subsample of the original study subjects. This occurs, for example, when inclusion probabilities for the subsample depend on first-stage results and/or on a covariate related to disease status. Reference standard bias arises when the reference test itself has imperfect sensitivity and specificity, but this information is ignored in the analysis. Reference standard bias typically results in underestimation of the sensitivity and specificity of the test under evaluation, since subjects that are correctly diagnosed by the test can be considered as misdiagnosed owing to the imperfections in the reference standard. In this paper, we describe a Bayesian approach for simultaneously addressing both verification and reference standard bias. Our models consider two types of verification bias, first when subjects are selected for verification based on initial test results alone, and then when selection is based on initial test results and a covariate. We also present a model that adjusts for a third potential bias that arises when tests are analyzed assuming conditional independence between tests, but some dependence exists between the initial test and the reference test. We examine the properties of our models using simulated data, and then apply them to a study of a screening test for dementia, providing bias-adjusted estimates of the sensitivity and specificity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.890 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it