Inverse probability weighting estimation of the volume under the ROC surface in the presence of verification bias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In diagnostic medicine, the volume under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) surface (VUS) is a commonly used index to quantify the ability of a continuous diagnostic test to discriminate between three disease states. In practice, verification of the true disease status may be performed only for a subset of subjects under study since the verification procedure is invasive, risky, or expensive. The selection for disease examination might depend on the results of the diagnostic test and other clinical characteristics of the patients, which in turn can cause bias in estimates of the VUS. This bias is referred to as verification bias. Existing verification bias correction in three-way ROC analysis focuses on ordinal tests. We propose verification bias-correction methods to construct ROC surface and estimate the VUS for a continuous diagnostic test, based on inverse probability weighting. By applying U-statistics theory, we develop asymptotic properties for the estimator. A Jackknife estimator of variance is also derived. Extensive simulation studies are performed to evaluate the performance of the new estimators in terms of bias correction and variance. The proposed methods are used to assess the ability of a biomarker to accurately identify stages of Alzheimer's disease.
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 | 0.027 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".