MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415152696 · doi:10.1002/pst.70043

Nonparametric Inference for the Covariate‐Adjusted Youden Index and Associated Cut‐Off Points for Three Ordinal Diagnostic Groups

2025· article· en· W4415152696 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Asieh Maghami‐Mehr, Hamzeh Torabi, Hossein Nadeb, Yichuan Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmaceutical Statistics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDoD Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMeso Scale DiagnosticsTakeda Pharmaceutical CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationAlzheimer's Drug Discovery FoundationSimons FoundationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsEstimatorConfidence intervalHeteroscedasticityYouden's J statisticContext (archaeology)Nonparametric statisticsInferencePoint estimationStatistical inference

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose point estimators and confidence intervals for the Youden index and optimal cut-off points in the context of three ordinal diagnostic groups, accounting for the presence of covariates. Using heteroscedastic regression models, we introduce two point estimators based on different assumptions and examine their asymptotic properties. Additionally, we present confidence intervals for the covariate-adjusted Youden index and its corresponding optimal cut-off points. The performance of the proposed estimators and confidence intervals is evaluated through a Monte Carlo simulation study. Finally, we demonstrate the applicability of our methods to an Alzheimer's disease dataset.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmaceutical StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207