Bayesian adjustment for the misclassification in both dependent and independent variables with application to a breast cancer study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a Bayesian method to address misclassification errors in both independent and dependent variables. Our work is motivated by a study of women who have experienced new breast cancers on two separate occasions. We call both cancers primary, because the second is usually not considered as the result of a metastasis spreading from the first. Hormone receptors (HRs) are important in breast cancer biology, and it is well recognized that the measurement of HR status is subject to errors. This discordance in HR status for two primary breast cancers is of concern and might be an important reason for treatment failure. To sort out the information on true concordance rate from the observed concordance rate, we consider a logistic regression model for the association between the HR status of the two cancers and introduce the misclassification parameters (i.e., sensitivity and specificity) accounting for the misclassification in HR status. The prior distribution for sensitivity and specificity is based on how HR status is actually assessed in laboratory procedures. To account for the nonlinear effect of one error-free covariate, we introduce the B-spline terms in the logistic regression model. Our findings indicate that the true concordance rate of HR status between two primary cancers is greater than the observed value. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".