Detecting Trends in Noisy Data Series: Application to Biomarker Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is common to define a change in health status or in a disease state on the basis of a sustained rise (or decline) in a biomarker over time. However, such observations are often subject to important variability unrelated to the underlying biologic process. The authors propose a method to evaluate rules that define an event on the basis of consecutive increases (or decreases) in the observations, given the presence of random variation. They examine how well these rules correctly identify a truly rising biomarker trajectory and, conversely, how often they can recognize a truly stable series or a slowly rising series. The method relies on simulation of realistic, sophisticated data sets that accurately reflect the systematic and random variations observed in marker series. These flexible, empirically based simulations enable estimation of the sensitivity and specificity of rules of consecutive rises as a function of the underlying trend, amount of random variation, and schedule of measurements (frequency and duration of follow-up). The authors illustrate the approach with postradiotherapy series of prostate-specific antigen, where three consecutive rises in prostate-specific antigen indicate treatment failure; the data are described by using a Bayesian hierarchical changepoint model. The method is particularly flexible and could be applied to evaluate other rules that purport to accurately detect upturns (downturns) in other noisy data series, including other medical data or other application areas.
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 | 0.016 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".