A likelihood approach to estimating sensitivity and specificity for binocular data: application in ophthalmology
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
Binocular data typically arise in ophthalmology where pairs of eyes are evaluated, through some diagnostic procedure, for the presence of certain diseases or pathologies. Treating eyes as independent and adopting the usual approach in estimating the sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic test ignores the correlation between eyes. This may consequently yield incorrect estimates, especially of the standard errors. The paper proposes a likelihood-based method of accounting for the correlations between eyes and estimating sensitivity and specificity using a model for binocular or paired binary outcomes. Estimation of model parameters via maximum likelihood is outlined and approximate tests are provided. The efficiency of the estimates is assessed in a simulation study. An extension of the methodology to the case of several diagnostic tests, or the same test measured on several occasions, which arises in multi-reader studies, is given. A further extension to the case of multiple diseases is outlined as well. Data from a study on diabetic retinopathy are analysed to illustrate the methodology.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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