ArticleACI open2024
An Online Tool for Correcting Performance Measures of Electronic Phenotyping Algorithms for Verification Bias.
Article in ACI open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Computable or electronic phenotypes of patient conditions are becoming more commonplace in quality improvement and clinical research. During phenotyping algorithm validation, standard classification performance measures (i.e., sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy) are often employed. When validation is performed on a randomly sampled patient population, direct estimates of these measures are valid. However, studies will commonly sample patients conditional on the algorithm result prior to validation, leading to a form of bias known as verification bias. Methods: We illustrate validation study sampling design and naïve and bias-corrected validation performance through both a concrete example (1,000 cases, 100 noncases, 1:1 sampling on predicted status) and a more thorough simulation study under varied realistic scenarios. We additionally describe the development of a free web calculator to adjust estimates for people validating phenotyping algorithms. Results: In our illustrative example, naïve performance estimates corresponded to 0.942 sensitivity, 0.979 specificity, and 0.960 accuracy; these contrast proper estimates of 0.620 sensitivity, 0.999 specificity, and 0.944 accuracy after adjusting for verification bias using our free calculator. Our simulation results demonstrate increasing positive bias for sensitivity and negative bias for specificity as the disease prevalence approaches zero, with decreasing positive predictive value moderately exacerbating these biases. Conclusion: Novel computable phenotypes of patient conditions must account for verification bias when calculating performance measures of the algorithm. The performance measures may vary significantly based on disease prevalence in the source population so use of a free web calculator to adjust these measures is desirable.
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.