↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating accuracy of diagnostic tests with intermediate results in the absence of a gold standard

Overview of attention for article published in Statistics in Medicine, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Evaluating accuracy of diagnostic tests with intermediate results in the absence of a gold standard
Published in
Statistics in Medicine, December 2012
DOI 10.1002/sim.5695
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Intermediate test results often occur with diagnostic tests. When assessing diagnostic accuracy, it is important to properly report and account for these results. In the literature, these results are commonly discarded prior to analysis or treated as either a positive or a negative result. Although such adjustments allow sensitivity and specificity to be computed in the standard way, these forced decisions limit the interpretability and usefulness of the results. Estimation of diagnostic accuracy is further complicated when tests are evaluated without a gold standard. Although traditional latent class modeling can be readily applied to analyze these data and account for intermediate results, these models assume that tests are independent conditional on the true disease status, which is rarely valid in practice. We extend both the log-linear latent class model and the probit latent class model to accommodate the conditional dependence among tests while taking the intermediate results into consideration. We illustrate our methods using a simulation study and a published medical study on the detection of epileptiform activity in the brain.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Sweden 1 5%
Australia 1 5%
Unknown 16 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Librarian 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 32%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Mathematics 1 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 6 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 December 2012.
All research outputs
#22,036,945
of 24,585,562 outputs
Outputs from Statistics in Medicine
#3,598
of 4,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,379
of 287,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Statistics in Medicine
#28
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,585,562 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,026 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 287,419 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.