Skew‐normal random‐effects model for meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hierarchical models are recommended for meta-analyzing diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies. The bivariate random-effects model is currently widely used to synthesize a pair of test sensitivity and specificity using logit transformation across studies. This model assumes a bivariate normal distribution for the random-effects. However, this assumption is restrictive and can be violated. When the assumption fails, inferences could be misleading. In this paper, we extended the current bivariate random-effects model by assuming a flexible bivariate skew-normal distribution for the random-effects in order to robustly model logit sensitivities and logit specificities. The marginal distribution of the proposed model is analytically derived so that parameter estimation can be performed using standard likelihood methods. The method of weighted-average is adopted to estimate the overall logit-transformed sensitivity and specificity. An extensive simulation study is carried out to investigate the performance of the proposed model compared to other standard models. Overall, the proposed model performs better in terms of confidence interval width of the average logit-transformed sensitivity and specificity compared to the standard bivariate linear mixed model and bivariate generalized linear mixed model. Simulations have also shown that the proposed model performed better than the well-established bivariate linear mixed model in terms of bias and comparable with regards to the root mean squared error (RMSE) of the between-study (co)variances. The proposed method is also illustrated using a published meta-analysis data.
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 | 0.106 | 0.195 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".