The utility of prior information and stratification for parameter estimation with two screening tests but no gold standard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a gold standard screening or diagnostic test is not routinely available, it is common to apply two different imperfect tests to subjects from a study population. There is a considerable literature on estimating relevant parameters from the resultant data. In the situation that test sensitivities and specificities are unknown, several inferential strategies have been proposed. One suggestion is to use rough knowledge about the unknown test characteristics as prior information in a Bayesian analysis. Another suggestion is to obtain the statistical advantage of an identified model by splitting the population into two strata with differing disease prevalences. There is some division of opinion in the epidemiological literature on the relative merits of these two approaches. This article aims to shed light on the issue, by applying some recently developed theory on the performance of Bayesian inference in non-identified statistical models.
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 | 0.070 | 0.302 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".