Evaluating the accuracy and economic value of a new test in the absence of a perfect reference test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Streptococcus pneumoniae (SP) pneumonia is often treated empirically as diagnosis is challenging because of the lack of a perfect test. Using BinaxNOW-SP, a urinary antigen test, as an add-on to standard cultures may not only increase diagnostic yield but also increase costs. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the sensitivity and specificity of BinaxNOW-SP and subsequently estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding BinaxNOW-SP to the diagnostic work-up. DESIGN: We fit a Bayesian latent-class meta-analysis model to obtain estimates of BinaxNOW-SP accuracy that adjust for the imperfect accuracy of culture. Meta-analysis results were combined with information on prevalence of SP pneumonia to estimate the number of patients who are correctly classified under competing diagnostic strategies. Taking into consideration the cost of antibiotics, we determined the incremental cost of adding BinaxNOW-SP to the work-up per case correctly diagnosed. RESULTS: The BinaxNOW-SP test had a pooled sensitivity of 0.74 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.67-0.83) and a pooled specificity of 0.96 (95% CrI, 0.92-0.99). An overall increase in diagnostic accuracy of 6.2% due to the addition of BinaxNOW-SP corresponded to an incremental cost per case correctly classified of $582 Canadian dollars. CONCLUSIONS: The methods we have described allow us to evaluate the accuracy and economic value of a new test in the absence of a perfect reference test using an evidence-based approach.
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 | 0.114 | 0.302 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".