ArticleScientific reports2025
Proof-of-concept of bayesian latent class modelling usefulness for assessing diagnostic tests in absence of diagnostic standards in mental health.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed at demonstrating the feasibility, utility and relevance of the Bayesian Latent Class Modelling (BLCM), not assuming a gold standard, when assessing the diagnostic accuracy of the first hetero-assessment test for early detection of occupational burnout (EDTB) by healthcare professionals and the OLdenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI). We used available data from OLBI and EDTB completed for 100 Belgian and 42 Swiss patients before and after medical consultations. We applied the Hui-Walter framework for two tests and two populations and ran models with minimally informative priors, with and without conditional dependency between diagnostic sensitivities and specificities. We further performed sensitivity analysis by replacing one of the minimally informative priors with the distribution beta1,2 at each time for all priors. We also performed the sensitivity analysis using literature-based informative priors for OLBI. Using the BLCM without conditional dependency, the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the EDTB were 0.91 (0.77-1.00) and 0.82 (0.59-1.00), respectively. The sensitivity analysis did not yield any significant changes in these results. The EDTB’s sensitivity and specificity obtained by a BLCM approach are better compared to the previous studies when EDTB was evaluated against OLBI, considered as a gold standard. These findings show the utility and relevance of BLCM in the absence of a 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.