MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3028751448 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0240215

Prevalence threshold (ϕe) and the geometry of screening curves

2020· article· en· W3028751448 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurvatureMaxima and minimaPredictive valueMathematicsFunction (biology)Sensitivity (control systems)Value (mathematics)StatisticsMedicineMathematical analysisGeometryInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between a screening tests' positive predictive value, ρ, and its target prevalence, ϕ, is proportional-though not linear in all but a special case. In consequence, there is a point of local extrema of curvature defined only as a function of the sensitivity a and specificity b beyond which the rate of change of a test's ρ drops precipitously relative to ϕ. Herein, we show the mathematical model exploring this phenomenon and define the prevalence threshold (ϕe) point where this change occurs as: [Formula: see text] where ε = a + b. From the prevalence threshold we deduce a more generalized relationship between prevalence and positive predictive value as a function of ε, which represents a fundamental theorem of screening, herein defined as: [Formula: see text] Understanding the concepts described in this work can help contextualize the validity of screening tests in real time, and help guide the interpretation of different clinical scenarios in which screening is undertaken.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.094 · 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