Estimation of Diagnostic Accuracy of a Combination of Continuous Biomarkers Allowing for Conditional Dependence Between the Biomarkers and the Imperfect Reference-Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating biomarker-index accuracy when only imperfect reference-test information is available is usually performed under the assumption of conditional independence between the biomarker and imperfect reference-test values. We propose to define a latent normally-distributed tolerance-variable underlying the observed dichotomous imperfect reference-test results. Subsequently, we construct a Bayesian latent-class model based on the joint multivariate normal distribution of the latent tolerance and biomarker values, conditional on latent true disease status, which allows accounting for conditional dependence. The accuracy of the continuous biomarker-index is quantified by the AUC of the optimal linear biomarker-combination. Model performance is evaluated by using a simulation study and two sets of data of Alzheimer's disease patients (one from the memory-clinic-based Amsterdam Dementia Cohort and one from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database). Simulation results indicate adequate model performance and bias in estimates of the diagnostic-accuracy measures when the assumption of conditional independence is used when, in fact, it is incorrect. In the considered case studies, conditional dependence between some of the biomarkers and the imperfect reference-test is detected. However, making the conditional independence assumption does not lead to any marked differences in the estimates of diagnostic accuracy.
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 | 0.048 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".