MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417070771 · doi:10.1002/sim.70327

Likelihood‐Based Non‐Parametric Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve Analysis in the Presence of Imperfect Reference Standard

2025· article· en· W4417070771 on OpenAlexafffund
Yifan Sun, Peijun Sang, Qinglong Tian, Pengfei Li

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReceiver operating characteristicImperfectGold standard (test)Index (typography)Standard errorMean squared error

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In diagnostic studies, researchers frequently encounter imperfect reference standards with some misclassified labels. Treating these as gold standards can bias receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. To address this issue, we propose a novel likelihood-based method under a non-parametric density ratio model. This approach enables the reliable estimation of the ROC curve, area under the curve (AUC), partial AUC, and Youden's index with favorable statistical properties. To implement the method, we develop an efficient expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm. Extensive simulations evaluate its finite-sample performance, showing smaller mean squared errors in estimating the ROC curve, partial AUC, and Youden's index compared to existing methods. We apply the proposed approach to a malaria study.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.126
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.126
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlFrench-language works237,207