Literature DB >> 1538629

Off Bayes: effect of verification bias on posterior probabilities calculated using Bayes' theorem.

G A Diamond1.   

Abstract

Estimates of sensitivity and specificity can be biased by the preferential referral of patients with positive test responses or ancillary clinical abnormalities (the "concomitant information vector") for diagnostic verification. When these biased estimates are analyzed by Bayes' theorem, the resultant posterior disease probabilities (positive and negative predictive accuracies) are similarly biased. Accordingly, a series of computer simulations was performed to quantify the effects of various degrees of verification bias on the calculation of predictive accuracy using Bayes' theorem. The magnitudes of the errors in the observed true-positive rate (sensitivity) and false-positive rate (the complement of specificity) ranged from +11% and +23%, respectively (when the test response and the concomitant information vector were conditionally independent), to +16% and +48% (when they were conditionally non-independent). These errors produced absolute underestimations as high as 22% in positive predictive accuracy, and as high as 14% in negative predictive accuracy, when analyzed by Bayes' theorem at a base rate of 50%. Mathematical correction for biased verification based on the test response using a previously published algorithm significantly reduced these errors by as much as 20%. These data indicate 1) that selection bias significantly distorts the determination of predictive accuracies calculated by Bayes' theorem, and 2) that these distortions can be significantly offset by a correction algorithm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1538629     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9201200105

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  6 in total

Review 1.  Magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing lumbar spinal pathology in adult patients with low back pain or sciatica: a diagnostic systematic review.

Authors:  Merel Wassenaar; Rogier M van Rijn; Maurits W van Tulder; Arianne P Verhagen; Danielle A W M van der Windt; Bart W Koes; Michiel R de Boer; Abida Z Ginai; Raymond W J G Ostelo
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-09-16       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Quantitative assessments from the clinical examination. How should clinicians integrate the numerous results?

Authors:  D R Holleman; D L Simel
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Anticipating missing reference standard data when planning diagnostic accuracy studies.

Authors:  Christiana A Naaktgeboren; Joris A H de Groot; Anne W S Rutjes; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; Karel G M Moons
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-02-09

4.  STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Jérémie F Cohen; Daniël A Korevaar; Douglas G Altman; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Lotty Hooft; Les Irwig; Deborah Levine; Johannes B Reitsma; Henrica C W de Vet; Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-11-14       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Early-Onset Neonatal Sepsis: Still Room for Improvement in Procalcitonin Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.

Authors:  Claudio Chiesa; Lucia Pacifico; John F Osborn; Enea Bonci; Nora Hofer; Bernhard Resch
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.889

6.  Use of anti-granulocyte scintigraphy with 99mTc-labeled monoclonal antibodies for the diagnosis of periprosthetic infection in patients after total joint arthroplasty: a diagnostic meta-analysis.

Authors:  Dan Xing; Xinlong Ma; Jianxiong Ma; Jie Wang; Yang Chen; Yang Yang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-26       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.