ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Drivers of bias in diagnostic test accuracy estimates when using expert panels as a reference standard: a simulation study.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Amyloid Probability in Alzheimer Disease From Plasma, Cerebrospinal Fluid, and Amyloid Imaging.Research square · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExpert panels are often used as a reference standard when no gold standard is available in diagnostic test accuracy research. It is often unclear what study and expert panel characteristics produce the best estimates of diagnostic test accuracy. We simulated a large range of scenarios to assess the impact of study and expert panel characteristics on index test diagnostic accuracy estimates.
methodsSimulations were performed in which an expert panel was the reference standard to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of an index diagnostic test. Diagnostic accuracy was determined by combining probability estimates of target condition presence, provided by experts using four component reference tests, through a predefined threshold. Study and panel characteristics were varied in several scenarios: target condition prevalence, accuracy of component reference tests, expert panel size, study population size, and random or systematic differences between expert's probability estimates. The total bias in each scenario was quantified using mean squared error.
resultsWhen estimating an index test with 80% sensitivity and 70% specificity, bias in estimates was hardly affected by the study population size or the number of experts. Prevalence had a large effect on bias, scenarios with a prevalence of 0.5 estimated sensitivity between 63.3% and 76.7% and specificity between 56.1% and 68.7%, whereas scenarios with a prevalence of 0.2 estimated sensitivity between 48.5% and 73.3% and specificity between 65.5% and 68.7%. Improved reference tests also reduced bias. Scenarios with four component tests of 80% sensitivity and specificity estimated index test sensitivity between 60.1% and 77.4% and specificity between 62.9% and 69.1%, whereas scenarios with four component tests of 70% sensitivity and specificity estimated index test sensitivity between 48.5% and 73.4% and specificity between 56.1% and 67.0%.
conclusionsBias in accuracy estimates when using an expert panel will increase if the component reference tests are less accurate. Prevalence, the true value of the index test accuracy, and random or systematic differences between experts can also impact the amount of bias, but the amount and even direction will vary between scenarios.
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.