MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380537590 · doi:10.1002/sim.9823

Statistical inference for the two‐sample problem under likelihood ratio ordering, with application to the ROC curve estimation

2023· article· en· W4380537590 on OpenAlexafffund
Dingding Hu, Meng Yuan, Tao Yu, Pengfei Li

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReceiver operating characteristicEstimatorStatisticsStatistical inferenceConsistency (knowledge bases)MathematicsInferenceAsymptotic distributionSample size determinationMaximum likelihoodComputer scienceApplied mathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is a powerful statistical tool and has been widely applied in medical research. In the ROC curve estimation, a commonly used assumption is that larger the biomarker value, greater severity the disease. In this article, we mathematically interpret "greater severity of the disease" as "larger probability of being diseased." This in turn is equivalent to assume the likelihood ratio ordering of the biomarker between the diseased and healthy individuals. With this assumption, we first propose a Bernstein polynomial method to model the distributions of both samples; we then estimate the distributions by the maximum empirical likelihood principle. The ROC curve estimate and the associated summary statistics are obtained subsequently. Theoretically, we establish the asymptotic consistency of our estimators. Via extensive numerical studies, we compare the performance of our method with competitive methods. The application of our method is illustrated by a real-data example.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.359 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207