ArticleBiometrics2023
Simplifying the estimation of diagnostic testing accuracy over time for high specificity tests in the absence of a gold standard.
Article in Biometrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many different methods for evaluating diagnostic test results in the absence of a gold standard have been proposed. In this paper, we discuss how one common method, a maximum likelihood estimate for a latent class model found via the Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm can be applied to longitudinal data where test sensitivity changes over time. We also propose two simplified and nonparametric methods which use data-based indicator variables for disease status and compare their accuracy to the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) results. We find that with high specificity tests, the performance of simpler approximations may be just as high as the MLE.
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.