Statistics for quantifying heterogeneity in univariate and bivariate meta-analyses of binary data: The case of meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy
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
Heterogeneity in diagnostic meta-analyses is common because of the observational nature of diagnostic studies and the lack of standardization in the positivity criterion (cut-off value) for some tests. So far the unexplained heterogeneity across studies has been quantified by either using the I(2) statistic for a single parameter (i.e. either the sensitivity or the specificity) or visually examining the data in a receiver-operating characteristic space. In this paper, we derive improved I(2) statistics measuring heterogeneity for dichotomous outcomes, with a focus on diagnostic tests. We show that the currently used estimate of the 'typical' within-study variance proposed by Higgins and Thompson is not able to properly account for the variability of the within-study variance across studies for dichotomous variables. Therefore, when the between-study variance is large, the 'typical' within-study variance underestimates the expected within-study variance, and the corresponding I(2) is overestimated. We propose to use the expected value of the within-study variation in the construction of I(2) in cases of univariate and bivariate diagnostic meta-analyses. For bivariate diagnostic meta-analyses, we derive a bivariate version of I(2) that is able to account for the correlation between sensitivity and specificity. We illustrate the performance of these new estimators using simulated data as well as two real data sets.
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 | 0.138 | 0.488 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it