Literature DB >> 18167634

Joint modeling of sensitivity and specificity.

Gavino Puggioni1, Alan E Gelfand, Joann G Elmore.   

Abstract

Sensitivity and specificity are two customary performance measures associated with medical diagnostic tests. Typically, they are modeled independently as a function of risk factors using logistic regression, which provides estimated functions for these probabilities. Change in these probabilities across levels of risk factors is of primary interest and the indirect relationship is often displayed using a receiver operating characteristic curve. We refer to this as analysis of 'first-order' behavior. Here, we consider what we refer to as 'second-order' behavior where we examine the stochastic dependence between the (random) estimates of sensitivity and specificity. To do so, we argue that a model for the four cell probabilities that determine the joint distribution of screening test result and outcome result is needed. Such a modeling induces sensitivity and specificity as functions of these cell probabilities. In turn, this raises the issue of a coherent specification for these cell probabilities, given risk factors, i.e. a specification that ensures that all probabilities calculated under it fall between 0 and 1. This leads to the question of how to provide models that are coherent and mechanistically appropriate as well as computationally feasible to fit, particularly with large data sets. The goal of this article is to illuminate these issues both algebraically and through analysis of a real data set.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18167634      PMCID: PMC3151257          DOI: 10.1002/sim.3186

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  14 in total

1.  Widespread assessment of risk-adjusted outcomes: lessons from local initiatives.

Authors:  L I Iezzoni; L G Greenberg
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Improv       Date:  1994-06

2.  Judging hospitals by severity-adjusted mortality rates: the case of CABG surgery.

Authors:  B Landon; L I Iezzoni; A S Ash; M Shwartz; J Daley; J S Hughes; Y D Mackiernan
Journal:  Inquiry       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 1.730

3.  Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms.

Authors:  C L Christiansen; F Wang; M B Barton; W Kreuter; J G Elmore; A E Gelfand; S W Fletcher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-10-18       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Performance assessment for radiologists interpreting screening mammography.

Authors:  D B Woodard; A E Gelfand; W E Barlow; J G Elmore
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-03-30       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Diana L Miglioretti; Lisa M Reisch; Mary B Barton; William Kreuter; Cindy L Christiansen; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-09-18       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms.

Authors:  J G Elmore; C K Wells; C H Lee; D H Howard; A R Feinstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-12-01       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; D Grady; J Barclay; E A Sickles; A Eaton; V Ernster
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-11-24       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip W Chu; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Roger Blanks; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Janet K Bobo; Nancy C Lee; Matthew G Wallis; Julietta Patnick; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-10-22       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert Rosenberg; Carolyn M Rutter; Berta M Geller; Linn A Abraham; Steven H Taplin; Mark Dignan; Gary Cutter; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-02-04       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Connie Y Nakano; Thomas D Koepsell; Laurel M Desnick; Carl J D'Orsi; David F Ransohoff
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-09-17       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  1 in total

1.  Magnetic resonance imaging for locating nonpalpable undescended testicles: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Shanthi Krishnaswami; Christopher Fonnesbeck; David Penson; Melissa L McPheeters
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2013-05-20       Impact factor: 7.124

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.