MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113321769 · doi:10.1136/eb-2013-101243

The two-step Fagan's nomogram: ad hoc interpretation of a diagnostic test result without calculation

2013· article· en· W2113321769 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Caraguel, Raphaël Vanderstichel

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicReliability and Agreement in Measurement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNomogramFagan inspectionComputer scienceTest (biology)MedicineSoftware engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1975, Fagan published a nomogram to help practitioners determine, without the use of a calculator or computer, the probability of a patient truly having a condition of interest given a particular test result. Nomograms are very useful for bedside interpretations of test results, as no test is perfect. However, the practicality of Fagan's nomogram is limited by its use of the likelihood ratio (LR), a parameter not commonly reported in the evaluation studies of diagnostic tests. The LR reflects the direction and strength of evidence provided by a test result and can be computed from the conventional diagnostic sensitivity (DSe) and specificity (DSp) of the test. This initial computation is absent in Fagan's nomogram, making it impractical for routine use. We have seamlessly integrated the initial step to compute the LR and the resulting two-step nomogram allows the user to quickly interpret the outcome of a test. With the addition of the DSe and DSp, the nomogram, for the purposes of interpreting a dichotomous test result, is now complete. This tool is more accessible and flexible than the original, which will facilitate its use in routine evidence-based practice. The nomogram can be downloaded at: www.adelaide.edu.au/vetsci/research/pub_pop/2step-nomogram/.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.158
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.158
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0100.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations136
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicReliability and Agreement in MeasurementFrench-language works237,207