Statistical methods for detecting outlying and influential studies in meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bivariate random-effects models are currently widely used to synthesize pairs of test sensitivity and specificity across studies. Inferences drawn based on these models may be distorted in the presence of outlying or influential studies. Currently, subjective methods such as inspection of forest plots are used to identify outlying studies in meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies. We proposed objective methods based on solid statistical reasoning for identifying outlying and/or influential studies. The proposed methods have been validated using simulation study and illustrated on two published meta-analysis data. Our methods outperform and neglect the subjectivity of the currently used ad hoc methods. The proposed methods can be used as a sensitivity analysis tool concurrently with the current bivariate random-effects models or as a preliminary analysis tool for robust models that accommodate outlying and/or influential studies in meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.
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 | 0.480 | 0.697 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".