MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evidence base of clinical diagnosis: The architecture of diagnostic research

2002· article· en· W3032677176 on OpenAlexaff
D L Sackett, R. Brian Haynes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)Diagnostic testMedicineDiagnostic accuracySuspectClinical trialIntensive care medicineMedical physicsPathologyPsychologyInternal medicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considerable effort has been expended at the interface between clinical medicine and scientific methods to achieve the maximum validity and usefulness of diagnostic tests. This article focuses on the specific kinds of questions that arise in diagnostic research and the study architectures (the conversions of these clinical questions into appropriate research designs) used to answer them. As an example we shall take shall take assessment of the value of the plasma concentration of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) in the diagnosis of left ventricular dysfunction.1 Randomised controlled trials are dealt with elsewhere. As in other forms of clinical research, there are several different ways studying the potential or real diagnostic value of a physical sign or laboratory test, and each is appropriate to one kind of question and inappropriate for others. Among the possible questions about the relation between a putative diagnostic test and a target disorder (for example, the concentration of BNP and left ventricular dysfunction), four are most relevant. Summary points Diagnostic studies should match methods to diagnostic questions Do test results in affected patients differ from those in normal individuals? Are patients with certain test results more likely to have the target disorder? Do test results distinguish patients with and without the target disorder among those in whom it is clinically sensible to suspect the disorder? Do patients undergoing the diagnostic test fare better than similar untested patients? The keys to validity in diagnostic test studies are independent, blind comparison of test results with a reference standard among a consecutive series of patients suspected (but not known) to have the target disorder inclusion of missing and indeterminate results replication of studies in other settings Both specificity and sensitivity may change as the same diagnostic test is applied in primary, secondary, and tertiary care

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.339
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.757
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3390.757
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0790.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.973
GPT teacher head0.685
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical · Review

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

Citations143
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207