Literature DB >> 24415817

Estimating confidence intervals for the difference in diagnostic accuracy with three ordinal diagnostic categories without a gold standard.

Le Kang1, Chengjie Xiong2, Lili Tian3.   

Abstract

With three ordinal diagnostic categories, the most commonly used measures for the overall diagnostic accuracy are the volume under the ROC surface (VUS) and partial volume under the ROC surface (PVUS), which are the extensions of the area under the ROC curve (AUC) and partial area under the ROC curve (PAUC), respectively. A gold standard (GS) test on the true disease status is required to estimate the VUS and PVUS. However, oftentimes it may be difficult, inappropriate, or impossible to have a GS because of misclassification error, risk to the subjects or ethical concerns. Therefore, in many medical research studies, the true disease status may remain unobservable. Under the normality assumption, a maximum likelihood (ML) based approach using the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm for parameter estimation is proposed. Three methods using the concepts of generalized pivot and parametric/nonparametric bootstrap for confidence interval estimation of the difference in paired VUSs and PVUSs without a GS are compared. The coverage probabilities of the investigated approaches are numerically studied. The proposed approaches are then applied to a real data set of 118 subjects from a cohort study in early stage Alzheimer's disease (AD) from the Washington University Knight Alzheimer's Disease Research Center to compare the overall diagnostic accuracy of early stage AD between two different pairs of neuropsychological tests.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EM algorithm; Generalized pivot; Gold standard; Parametric bootstrap; Volume under the ROC surface

Year:  2013        PMID: 24415817      PMCID: PMC3883051          DOI: 10.1016/j.csda.2013.07.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Comput Stat Data Anal        ISSN: 0167-9473            Impact factor:   1.681


  10 in total

Review 1.  The interpretation of diagnostic tests.

Authors:  D E Shapiro
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.021

2.  Ordered multiple-class ROC analysis with continuous measurements.

Authors:  Christos T Nakas; Constantin T Yiannoutsos
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2004-11-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Measuring and estimating diagnostic accuracy when there are three ordinal diagnostic groups.

Authors:  Chengjie Xiong; Gerald van Belle; J Philip Miller; John C Morris
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2006-04-15       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Nonparametric estimation of ROC curves in the absence of a gold standard.

Authors:  Xiao-Hua Zhou; Pete Castelluccio; Chuan Zhou
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Multiple-Event Forced-Choice Tasks in the Theory of Signal Detectability

Authors: 
Journal:  J Math Psychol       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 2.223

6.  Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis without truth.

Authors:  R M Henkelman; I Kay; M J Bronskill
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1990 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules.

Authors:  J C Morris
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 9.910

8.  A parametric comparison of diagnostic accuracy with three ordinal diagnostic groups.

Authors:  Chengjie Xiong; Gerald van Belle; J Philip Miller; Yan Yan; Feng Gao; Kai Yu; John C Morris
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.207

9.  Exact confidence interval estimation for the difference in diagnostic accuracy with three ordinal diagnostic groups.

Authors:  Lili Tian; Chengjie Xiong; Chin-Ying Lai; Albert Vexler
Journal:  J Stat Plan Inference       Date:  2010-07-20       Impact factor: 1.111

10.  Interval estimation for the difference in paired areas under the ROC curves in the absence of a gold standard test.

Authors:  Hsin-Neng Hsieh; Hsiu-Yuan Su; Xiao-Hua Zhou
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 2.373

  10 in total
  2 in total

1.  Empirical likelihood confidence interval for sensitivity to the early disease stage.

Authors:  Husneara Rahman; Yichuan Zhao
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2021-12-27       Impact factor: 1.234

2.  A family of estimators to diagnostic accuracy when candidate tests are subject to detection limits-Application to diagnosing early stage Alzheimer disease.

Authors:  Chengjie Xiong; Jingqin Luo; Folasade Agboola; Elizabeth Grant; John C Morris
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 2.494

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.