↓ Skip to main content

Multinomial tree models for assessing the status of the reference in studies of the accuracy of tools for binary classification

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
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.
Title
Multinomial tree models for assessing the status of the reference in studies of the accuracy of tools for binary classification
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00694
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juan Botella, Huiling Huang, Manuel Suero

Abstract

Studies that evaluate the accuracy of binary classification tools are needed. Such studies provide 2 × 2 cross-classifications of test outcomes and the categories according to an unquestionable reference (or gold standard). However, sometimes a suboptimal reliability reference is employed. Several methods have been proposed to deal with studies where the observations are cross-classified with an imperfect reference. These methods require that the status of the reference, as a gold standard or as an imperfect reference, is known. In this paper a procedure for determining whether it is appropriate to maintain the assumption that the reference is a gold standard or an imperfect reference, is proposed. This procedure fits two nested multinomial tree models, and assesses and compares their absolute and incremental fit. Its implementation requires the availability of the results of several independent studies. These should be carried out using similar designs to provide frequencies of cross-classification between a test and the reference under investigation. The procedure is applied in two examples with real data.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 13%
Unknown 7 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 2 25%
Researcher 2 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 13%
Student > Master 1 13%
Unknown 2 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 3 38%
Social Sciences 2 25%
Unknown 3 38%
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 03 October 2013.
All research outputs
#20,203,867
of 22,723,682 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,874
of 29,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,792
of 280,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#851
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,723,682 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 29,536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. 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 280,763 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 969 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.