Bayesian approaches to modeling the conditional dependence between multiple diagnostic tests. Biometrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY. Many analyses of results from multiple diagnostic tests assume the tests are statistically inde-pendent conditional on the true disease status of the subject. This assumption may be violated in practice, especially in situations where none of the tests is a perfectly accurate gold standard. Classical inference for models accounting for the conditional dependence between tests requires that results from at least four different tests be used in order to obtain an identifiable solution, but it is not always feasible to have results from this many tests. We use a Bayesian approach to draw inferences about the disease prevalence and test properties while adjusting for the possibility of conditional dependence between tests, particularly when we have only two tests. We propose both fixed and random effects models. Since with fewer than four tests the problem is nonidentifiable, the posterior distributions are strongly dependent on the prior information about the test properties and the disease prevalence, even with large sample sizes. If the degree of correlation between the tests is known a priori with high precision, then our methods adjust for the dependence be-tween the tests. Otherwise, our methods provide adjusted inferences that incorporate all of the uncertainty inherent in the problem, typically resulting in wider interval estimates. We illustrate our methods using data from a study on the prevalence of Strongyloides infection among Cambodian refugees to Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".