Sensitivity and specificity of pulse detection using a new deconvolution method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantifying pulsatile secretion from serial hormone concentration measurements (deconvolution analysis) requires automated, objective, and accurate detection of pulse times to ensure valid estimation of secretion and elimination parameters. Lack of validated pulse identification constitutes a major deficiency in the deconvolution field, because individual pulse size and number reflect regulated processes that are critical for the function and response of secretory glands. To evaluate deconvolution pulse detection accuracy, four empirical models of true-positive markers of pituitary (LH) pulses were used. 1) Sprague-Dawley rats had recordings of hypothalamic arcuate nucleus multiunit electrical activity, 2) ovariectomized ewes underwent sampling of hypothalamo-pituitary gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH pulses), 3) healthy young men were infused with trains of biosynthetic LH pulses after GnRH receptor blockade, and 4) computer simulations of pulsatile LH profiles were constructed. Outcomes comprised sensitivity, specificity, and receiver-operating characteristic curves. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.93 and 0.97, respectively, for combined empirical data in the rat, sheep, and human (n = 156 pulses) and 0.94 and 0.92, respectively, for computer simulations (n = 1,632 pulses). For simulated data, pulse-set selection by the Akaike information criterion yielded slightly higher sensitivity than by the Bayesian information criterion, and the reverse was true for specificity. False-positive errors occurred primarily at low-pulse amplitude, and false-negative errors occurred principally with close pulse proximity. Random variability (noise), sparse sampling, and rapid pulse frequency reduced pulse detection sensitivity more than specificity. We conclude that an objective automated pulse detection deconvolution procedure has high sensitivity and specificity, thus offering a platform for quantitative neuroendocrine analyses.
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 | 0.014 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".