Developing biomarker combinations in multicenter studies via direct maximization and penalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivated by a study of acute kidney injury, we consider the setting of biomarker studies involving patients at multiple centers where the goal is to develop a biomarker combination for diagnosis, prognosis, or screening. As biomarker studies become larger, this type of data structure will be encountered more frequently. In the presence of multiple centers, one way to assess the predictive capacity of a given combination is to consider the center-adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (aAUC), a summary of the ability of the combination to discriminate between cases and controls in each center. Rather than using a general method, such as logistic regression, to construct the biomarker combination, we propose directly maximizing the aAUC. Furthermore, it may be desirable to have a biomarker combination with similar performance across centers. To that end, we allow for penalization of the variability in the center-specific AUCs. We demonstrate desirable asymptotic properties of the resulting combinations. Simulations provide small-sample evidence that maximizing the aAUC can lead to combinations with improved performance. We also use simulated data to illustrate the utility of constructing combinations by maximizing the aAUC while penalizing variability. Finally, we apply these methods to data from the study of acute kidney injury.
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 | 0.084 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".