Effect of dependent errors in the assessment of diagnostic or screening test accuracy when the reference standard is imperfect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When no gold standard is available to evaluate a diagnostic or screening test, as is often the case, an imperfect reference standard test must be used instead. Furthermore, the errors of the test and its reference standard may not be independent. Some authors have opined that positively dependent errors will lead to overestimation of test performance. Although positive dependence does increase agreement between the test and the reference standard, it is not clear if test accuracy will necessarily be overestimated in this situation, and the case of negatively associated test errors is even less clear. To examine this issue in more detail, we derive the apparent sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy of a test relative to an imperfect reference standard and the bias in these parameters. We demonstrate that either positive or negative bias can occur if the reference standard is imperfect. The type and magnitude of bias depend on several components: the disease prevalence, the true test sensitivity and specificity, the covariance between the false-negative test errors among the true disease cases, and the covariance between the false-positive test errors among the true noncases. If, for example, sensitivity and specificity are 0.8 for both the test and reference standard and the errors have a moderate positive dependence, test sensitivity is then underestimated at low prevalence but overestimated at high prevalence, while the opposite occurs for specificity. We illustrate these ideas through general numerical calculations and an empirical example of screening for breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography.
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 | 0.071 | 0.349 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".