Literature DB >> 21856650

A robust method using propensity score stratification for correcting verification bias for binary tests.

Hua He1, Michael P McDermott.   

Abstract

Sensitivity and specificity are common measures of the accuracy of a diagnostic test. The usual estimators of these quantities are unbiased if data on the diagnostic test result and the true disease status are obtained from all subjects in an appropriately selected sample. In some studies, verification of the true disease status is performed only for a subset of subjects, possibly depending on the result of the diagnostic test and other characteristics of the subjects. Estimators of sensitivity and specificity based on this subset of subjects are typically biased; this is known as verification bias. Methods have been proposed to correct verification bias under the assumption that the missing data on disease status are missing at random (MAR), that is, the probability of missingness depends on the true (missing) disease status only through the test result and observed covariate information. When some of the covariates are continuous, or the number of covariates is relatively large, the existing methods require parametric models for the probability of disease or the probability of verification (given the test result and covariates), and hence are subject to model misspecification. We propose a new method for correcting verification bias based on the propensity score, defined as the predicted probability of verification given the test result and observed covariates. This is estimated separately for those with positive and negative test results. The new method classifies the verified sample into several subsamples that have homogeneous propensity scores and allows correction for verification bias. Simulation studies demonstrate that the new estimators are more robust to model misspecification than existing methods, but still perform well when the models for the probability of disease and probability of verification are correctly specified.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21856650      PMCID: PMC3276270          DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxr020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biostatistics        ISSN: 1465-4644            Impact factor:   5.899


  6 in total

1.  Estimating disease prevalence in two-phase studies.

Authors:  Todd A Alonzo; Margaret Sullivan Pepe; Thomas Lumley
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study.

Authors:  Jared K Lunceford; Marie Davidian
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2004-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group.

Authors:  R B D'Agostino
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Cumulative illness rating scale.

Authors:  B S Linn; M W Linn; L Gurel
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  1968-05       Impact factor: 5.562

5.  Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias.

Authors:  C B Begg; R A Greenes
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  A structured interview guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

Authors:  J B Williams
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  1988-08
  6 in total
  5 in total

1.  Prediction model-based kernel density estimation when group membership is subject to missing.

Authors:  Hua He; Wenjuan Wang; Wan Tang
Journal:  Adv Stat Anal       Date:  2016-11-19       Impact factor: 1.160

Review 2.  Estimation of diagnostic test accuracy without full verification: a review of latent class methods.

Authors:  John Collins; Minh Huynh
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-06-09       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Assessing the Accuracy of Diagnostic Tests.

Authors:  Fangyu Li; Hua He
Journal:  Shanghai Arch Psychiatry       Date:  2018-06-25

4.  Diagnostic test evaluation methodology: A systematic review of methods employed to evaluate diagnostic tests in the absence of gold standard - An update.

Authors:  Chinyereugo M Umemneku Chikere; Kevin Wilson; Sara Graziadio; Luke Vale; A Joy Allen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-11       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Diagnostic accuracy of X-ray versus CT in COVID-19: a propensity-matched database study.

Authors:  Aditya Borakati; Adrian Perera; James Johnson; Tara Sood
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-11-06       Impact factor: 2.692

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.