ArticleAcademic radiology2012
Tree-structured subgroup analysis of receiver operating characteristic curves for diagnostic tests.
Article in Academic radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of C5.0 Algorithm for the Assessment of Perceived Stress in Healthcare Professionals Attending COVID-19.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Diagnostic performance of classification trees and hematological functions in hematologic disorders: an application of multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Decision tree methods: applications for classification and prediction.Shanghai archives of psychiatry · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesMultiple diagnostic tests are often available for a disease. Their diagnostic accuracy may depend on the characteristics of testing subjects. The investigators propose a new tree-structured data-mining method that identifies subgroups and their corresponding diagnostic tests to achieve the maximum area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe Osteoporosis and Ultrasound Study is a prospectively designed, population-based European multicenter observational study to evaluate state-of-the-art diagnostic methods for assessing osteoporosis. A total 2837 women underwent dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and quantitative ultrasound (QUS). Prevalent vertebral fractures were determined by a centralized radiology laboratory on the basis of radiographs. The data-mining algorithm includes three steps: defining the criteria for node splitting and selection of the best diagnostic test on the basis of the area under the curve, using a random forest to estimate the probability of DXA being the preferred diagnostic method for each participant, and building a single regression tree to describe subgroups for which either DXA or QUS is the more accurate test or for which the two tests are equivalent.
resultsFor participants with weights ≤54.5 kg, QUS had a higher area under the curve in identifying prevalent vertebral fracture. For participants whose weights were >58.5 kg and whose heights were ≤167.5 cm, DXA was better, and for the remaining participants, DXA and QUS had comparable accuracy and could be used interchangeably.
conclusionsThe proposed tree-structured subgroup analysis successfully defines subgroups and their best diagnostic tests. The method can be used to develop optimal diagnostic strategies in personalized medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.