MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129048052 · doi:10.1002/0470011815.b2a04025

Diagnostic Tests, Likelihood Ratio

2005· other· en· W2129048052 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEncyclopedia of Biostatistics · 2005
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsJuravinski Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayes' theoremDiagnostic testTest (biology)Pre- and post-test probabilityDiagnostic odds ratioLikelihood ratios in diagnostic testingStatisticsSensitivity (control systems)Likelihood-ratio testComputer scienceMathematicsMedicineBayesian probabilityReceiver operating characteristicEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article concerns the use of diagnostic test information in medical diagnosis. Traditionally, the association between a diagnostic test and the true state of disease has been quantified in terms of sensitivity and specificity. The application of Bayes Theorem allows the formal incorporation of the diagnostic test information as a post‐test probability of disease. The positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) are alternative expressions of the informational properties of the diagnostic test, which are computed from sensitivity and specificity. LRs offer several advantages including (a) simplifying the calculation of post‐test probability (via odds), (b) providing a more direct indication of the diagnostic value of the test, and (c) avoiding the need to dichotomize a quantitative test. Given enough data, one could estimate a continuous LR curve and thus compute post‐test probability for any test value.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.240
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.240
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.323 · 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