MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2137254780 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.141109

Interpreting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy

2014· letter· en· W2137254780 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Michael A. McIsaac

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2014
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this issue of The Journal , Payet, et al examine a test for elevated anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (anti-CCP) levels and demonstrate its inability to identify rheumatoid arthritis (RA) among anti-CCP-positive patients with rheumatic disorders1. Their results seem to be at odds with previous findings, which have shown the high diagnostic accuracy of anti-CCP tests for differential diagnosis of RA2,3. It is important, therefore, to consider how to appropriately interpret studies of diagnostic accuracy and assess generalizability. Such considerations are important when planning, reporting, or reading studies of diagnostic accuracy. Pepe4 lists the following 6 criteria for identifying settings where diagnostic tests would be useful: (1) the disease should be potentially serious, (2) the disease should be relatively prevalent in the target population, (3) the disease should be treatable, (4) the treatment should be available to those who test positive, (5) the test should not harm the individual, and (6) the test should accurately classify diseased and non-diseased individuals. Given that RA is a chronic disease (with a worldwide prevalence of 1%5) that can lead to severe disability, premature mortality6, and a loss of quality of life7, and given that appropriate therapeutic intervention can greatly enhance clinical outcomes6, it is clear that the first 4 criteria have been met in this setting. Anti-CCP antibody tests satisfy the fifth criterion, so it remains to establish that they can be used to accurately classify diseased and non-diseased individuals, which motivates studies of diagnostic accuracy such as that considered by Payet, et al 1. Note that there is evidence that this sixth criterion could be met because anti-CCP tests have been shown to be useful in identifying patients with early-stage RA8 and predicting which patients will … Address correspondence to Dr. M.A. McIsaac, Public Health Sciences, Queen’s University, 99 University Ave., Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada. E-mail: mcisaacm{at}queensu.ca

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 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)0.529
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.919
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5290.919
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.010
Bibliometrics0.0370.021
Science and technology studies0.0040.014
Scholarly communication0.0220.015
Open science0.0100.013
Research integrity0.0110.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.302 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies→French-language works237,207→