Understanding the effects of conditional dependence in research studies involving imperfect diagnostic tests
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When two imperfect diagnostic tests are carried out on the same subject, their results may be correlated even after conditioning on the true disease status. While past work has focused on the consequences of ignoring conditional dependence, the degree to which conditional dependence can be induced has not been systematically studied. We examine this issue in detail by introducing a hypothetical missing covariate that affects the sensitivities of two imperfect dichotomous tests. We consider four forms for this covariate, normal, uniform, dichotomous and trichotomous. In the case of a dichotomous covariate, we derive an expression showing that the conditional covariance is a function of the product of the changes in test sensitivities (or specificities) between the subgroups defined by the covariate. The maximum possible covariance is induced by a dichotomous covariate with a very strong effect on both tests. Through simulations, we evaluate the extent to which fitting a latent class model ignoring each type of covariate but including a general covariance term can adjust for the correlation induced by the covariate. We compare the results to when the conditional dependence is ignored. We find that the bias because of ignoring conditional dependence is generally small even for moderate covariate effects, and when bias is present, a model including a covariance term works well. We illustrate our methods by analyzing data from a childhood tuberculosis study. 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.
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 | 0.015 | 0.859 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it