MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800193779 · doi:10.1002/sim.7675

Dynamic thresholds and a summary ROC curve: Assessing prognostic accuracy of longitudinal markers

2018· article· en· W2800193779 on OpenAlexafffund
Paramita Saha‐Chaudhuri, Patrick J. Heagerty

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReceiver operating characteristicComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer patients, chronic kidney disease patients, and subjects infected with HIV are routinely monitored over time using biomarkers that represent key health status indicators. Furthermore, biomarkers are frequently used to guide initiation of new treatments or to inform changes in intervention strategies. Since key medical decisions can be made on the basis of a longitudinal biomarker, it is important to evaluate the potential accuracy associated with longitudinal monitoring. To characterize the overall accuracy of a time-dependent marker, we introduce a summary ROC curve that displays the overall sensitivity associated with a time-dependent threshold that controls time-varying specificity. The proposed statistical methods are similar to concepts considered in disease screening, yet our methods are novel in choosing a potentially time-dependent threshold to define a positive test, and our methods allow time-specific control of the false-positive rate. The proposed summary ROC curve is a natural averaging of time-dependent incident/dynamic ROC curves and therefore provides a single summary of net error rates that can be achieved in the longitudinal setting.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207