MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133300801 · doi:10.1002/sim.6085

Value of information methods for assessing a new diagnostic test

2014· article· en· W2133300801 on OpenAlexafffund
Maggie Hong Chen, Andrew R. Willan

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of TorontoPublic Health Ontario
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceValue of informationTest (biology)Value (mathematics)Sample (material)Sample size determinationStatisticsEconometricsMachine learningArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Value-of-information methods are applied to assess the evidence in support of a new diagnostic test and, where the evidence is insufficient for decision making, to determine the optimal sample size for future studies. Net benefit formulations are derived under various diagnostic and treatment scenarios. The expressions for the expected opportunity loss of adopting strategies that include the new test are given. Expressions for the expected value of information from future studies are derived. One-sample and two-sample designs, with or without known prevalence, are considered. An example is given.

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.896
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.896
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.396
GPT teacher head0.635
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207