System of Linear Equations to Derive Unreported Test Accuracy Counts for Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Meta-analyses assessing test accuracy typically require extracting true positive (TP), false negative (FN), false positive (FP), and true negative (TN) counts from each study, commonly organized in a 2 × 2 table. However, many published test accuracy studies do not report all of these counts, which can limit the ability of a meta-analysis to fully capture the available evidence on the screening or diagnostic accuracy of a given test. Fortunately, test accuracy studies often report sufficient parameters, such as sensitivity and specificity, that enable the estimation of unreported counts. The relationships between these commonly reported parameters and the unreported cell counts may be expressed mathematically and organized into a system of four linear equations. The basic principles of solving such systems using matrix methods are introduced, accompanied by examples illustrating the development and solution of linear systems with unknown TP, FN, TN, and TN counts. Approaches for handling rounding errors of reported test accuracy parameters in publications are also demonstrated. Additionally, methods for obtaining a bound solution are explored in scenarios where the solution for missing test accuracy counts results in a system with three linear equations and four unknowns, leading to non-unique solutions. Simulation studies are conducted to assess the performance of these methods, and practical guidance for their implementation is provided. The Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and SAS and R code for the examples presented in this article are available in the Supporting Information.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.475 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".