ArticlePloS one2019
The effect of uncertainty in patient classification on diagnostic performance estimations.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Facilitating Safe Discharge Through Predicting Disease Progression in Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Prospective Cohort Study to Develop and Validate a Clinical Prediction Model in Resource-Limited Settings.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2022Trial
- Causes of fever in primary care in Southeast Asia and the performance of C-reactive protein in discriminating bacterial from viral pathogens.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2020Trial
- Sequential Application of Time-Stratified Demographic, Vital, Clinical-Laboratory, and Microbiology Variables for Accurate and Rapid Identification of Sepsis.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- An Invisible Early Steatosis Phenotype Defined for a Large Population-Based Cohort.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Risk stratification of childhood infection using host markers of immune and endothelial activation in Asia (Spot Sepsis): a multi-country, prospective, cohort study.The Lancet. Child & adolescent health · 2025Observational
- Three Neglected STARD Criteria Reduce the Uncertainty of the Liver Fibrosis Biomarker FibroTest-T2D in Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Prediction of Prostate Cancer From Routine Laboratory Markers With Automated Machine Learning.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2025Article
- Performance comparison of BD Phoenix CPO detect panel with Cepheid Xpert Carba-R assay for the detection of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates.BMC microbiology · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Prospective external validation of a new non-invasive test for the diagnosis of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in patients with type 2 diabetes.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2021Article
- External validation of LCR1-LCR2, a multivariable HCC risk calculator, in patients with chronic HCV.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2021Article
- Diagnostic and prognostic capabilities of a biomarker and EMR-based machine learning algorithm for sepsis.Clinical and translational science · 2021Observational
- Article
- Gyrocardiography: A Review of the Definition, History, Waveform Description, and Applications.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Correction: The effect of uncertainty in patient classification on diagnostic performance estimations.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe performance of a new diagnostic test is typically evaluated against a comparator which is assumed to correspond closely to some true state of interest. Judgments about the new test's performance are based on the differences between the outputs of the test and comparator. It is commonly assumed that a small amount of uncertainty in the comparator's classifications will negligibly affect the measured performance of a diagnostic test.
methodsSimulated datasets were generated to represent typical diagnostic scenarios. Comparator noise was introduced in the form of random misclassifications, and the effect on the apparent performance of the diagnostic test was determined. An actual dataset from a clinical trial on a new diagnostic test for sepsis was also analyzed.
resultsWe demonstrate that as little as 5% misclassification of patients by the comparator can be enough to statistically invalidate performance estimates such as sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, if this uncertainty is not measured and taken into account. This distortion effect is found to increase non-linearly with comparator uncertainty, under some common diagnostic scenarios. For clinical populations exhibiting high degrees of classification uncertainty, failure to measure and account for this effect will introduce significant risks of drawing false conclusions. The effect of classification uncertainty is magnified further for high performing tests that would otherwise reach near-perfection in diagnostic evaluation trials. A requirement of very high diagnostic performance for clinical adoption, such as a 99% sensitivity, can be rendered nearly unachievable even for a perfect test, if the comparator diagnosis contains even small amounts of uncertainty. This paper and an accompanying online simulation tool demonstrate the effect of classification uncertainty on the apparent performance of tests across a range of typical diagnostic scenarios. Both simulated and real datasets are used to show the degradation of apparent test performance as comparator uncertainty increases.
conclusionsOverall, a 5% or greater misclassification rate by the comparator can lead to significant underestimation of true test performance. An online simulation tool allows researchers to explore this effect using their own trial parameters (https://imperfect-gold-standard.shinyapps.io/classification-noise/) and the source code is freely available (https://github.com/ksny/Imperfect-Gold-Standard).
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.