Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39639189›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024

Detecting departures from the conditional independence assumption in diagnostic latent class models: a simulation study.

Yasin Okkaoglu, Nicky J Welton, Hayley E Jones

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Yasin OkkaogluPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. yasin.okkaoglu@bristol.ac.uk.
Nicky J WeltonPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Hayley E JonesPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

MRC-NIHR New Investigator Research Grant MR/T044594/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLatent class models can be used to estimate diagnostic accuracy without a gold standard test. Early studies often assumed independence between tests given the true disease state, however this can lead to biased estimates when there are inter-test dependencies. Residual correlation plots and chi-squared statistics have been commonly utilized to assess the validity of the conditional independence assumption and, when it does not hold, identify which test pairs are conditionally dependent. We aimed to assess the performance of these tools with a simulation study covering a wide range of scenarios.

methodsWe generated data sets from a model with four tests and a dependence between tests 1 and 2 within the diseased group. We varied sample size, prevalence, covariance, sensitivity and specificity, with 504 combinations of these in total, and 1000 data sets for each combination. We fitted the conditional independence model in a Bayesian framework, and reported absolute bias, coverage, and how often the residual correlation plots,

resultsAcross all settings, residual correlation plots, pairwise

conclusionsResidual correlation plots and chi-squared statistics cannot be relied upon to identify which tests are conditionally dependent, and also have relatively low power to detect lack of overall fit. This is important since failure to account for conditional dependence can lead to highly biased parameter estimates.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremComputer SimulationLatent Class AnalysisSensitivity and SpecificityAlgorithmsDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansModels, StatisticalSample SizeConditional independenceDiagnostic accuracyGoodness of fitLatent class modelModel selectionResidual correlation plots

Identifiers

PMID39639189
PMCPMC11619692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.