Bivariate random‐effects meta‐analysis models for diagnostic test accuracy studies using arcsine‐based transformations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diagnostic or screening tests are widely used in medical fields to classify patients according to their disease status. Several statistical models for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies have been developed to synthesize test sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic test of interest. Because of the correlation between test sensitivity and specificity, modeling the two measures using a bivariate model is recommended. In this paper, we extend the current standard bivariate linear mixed model (LMM) by proposing two variance-stabilizing transformations: the arcsine square root and the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. We compared the performance of the proposed methods with the standard method through simulations using several performance measures. The simulation results showed that our proposed methods performed better than the standard LMM in terms of bias, root mean square error, and coverage probability in most of the scenarios, even when data were generated assuming the standard LMM. We also illustrated the methods using two real data sets.
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 | 0.124 | 0.199 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".