ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Machine learning augmented diagnostic testing to identify sources of variability in test performance.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Diagnostic tests that can detect pre-clinical or sub-clinical infection, are one of the most powerful tools in our armoury of weapons to control infectious diseases. Considerable effort has been paid to improving diagnostic testing for human, plant and animal diseases, including strategies for targeting the use of diagnostic tests towards individuals who are more likely to be infected. We use machine learning to assess the surrounding risk landscape under which a diagnostic test is applied to augment its interpretation. We develop this to predict the occurrence of bovine tuberculosis incidents in cattle herds, exploiting the availability of exceptionally detailed testing records. We show that, without compromising test specificity, test sensitivity can be improved so that the proportion of infected herds detected improves by over 5 percentage points, or 240 additional infected herds detected in one year beyond those detected by the skin test alone. We also use feature importance testing for assessing the weighting of risk factors. While many factors are associated with increased risk of incidents, of note are several factors that suggest that in some herds there is a higher risk of infection going undetected.
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.