IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/biomet/v79y2023i2p1546-1558.html

Simplifying the estimation of diagnostic testing accuracy over time for high specificity tests in the absence of a gold standard

Author

Listed:
  • Clara Drew
  • Moses Badio
  • Dehkontee Dennis
  • Lisa Hensley
  • Elizabeth Higgs
  • Michael Sneller
  • Mosoka Fallah
  • Cavan Reilly

Abstract

Many different methods for evaluating diagnostic test results in the absence of a gold standard have been proposed. In this paper, we discuss how one common method, a maximum likelihood estimate for a latent class model found via the Expectation‐Maximization (EM) algorithm can be applied to longitudinal data where test sensitivity changes over time. We also propose two simplified and nonparametric methods which use data‐based indicator variables for disease status and compare their accuracy to the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) results. We find that with high specificity tests, the performance of simpler approximations may be just as high as the MLE.

Suggested Citation

  • Clara Drew & Moses Badio & Dehkontee Dennis & Lisa Hensley & Elizabeth Higgs & Michael Sneller & Mosoka Fallah & Cavan Reilly, 2023. "Simplifying the estimation of diagnostic testing accuracy over time for high specificity tests in the absence of a gold standard," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 1546-1558, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:biomet:v:79:y:2023:i:2:p:1546-1558
    DOI: 10.1111/biom.13689
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.13689
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/biom.13689?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Huiping Xu & Bruce A. Craig, 2009. "A Probit Latent Class Model with General Correlation Structures for Evaluating Accuracy of Diagnostic Tests," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(4), pages 1145-1155, December.
    2. Chinyereugo M Umemneku Chikere & Kevin Wilson & Sara Graziadio & Luke Vale & A Joy Allen, 2019. "Diagnostic test evaluation methodology: A systematic review of methods employed to evaluate diagnostic tests in the absence of gold standard – An update," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-25, October.
    3. Paul S. Albert & Lori E. Dodd, 2004. "A Cautionary Note on the Robustness of Latent Class Models for Estimating Diagnostic Error without a Gold Standard," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 427-435, June.
    4. Grün, Bettina & Leisch, Friedrich, 2008. "FlexMix Version 2: Finite Mixtures with Concomitant Variables and Varying and Constant Parameters," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 28(i04).
    5. Paul S. Albert & Lisa M. McShane & Joanna H. Shih, 2001. "Latent Class Modeling Approaches for Assessing Diagnostic Error without a Gold Standard: With Applications to p53 Immunohistochemical Assays in Bladder Tumors," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 610-619, June.
    6. Chu, Haitao & Chen, Sining & Louis, Thomas A., 2009. "Random Effects Models in a Meta-Analysis of the Accuracy of Two Diagnostic Tests Without a Gold Standard," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 104(486), pages 512-523.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bruce D. Spencer, 2012. "When Do Latent Class Models Overstate Accuracy for Diagnostic and Other Classifiers in the Absence of a Gold Standard?," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(2), pages 559-566, June.
    2. Paul S. Albert, 2007. "Random Effects Modeling Approaches for Estimating ROC Curves from Repeated Ordinal Tests without a Gold Standard," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 63(2), pages 593-602, June.
    3. Artemis Koukounari & Haziq Jamil & Elena Erosheva & Clive Shiff & Irini Moustaki, 2021. "Latent Class Analysis: Insights about design and analysis of schistosomiasis diagnostic studies," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-23, February.
    4. Chinyereugo M Umemneku Chikere & Kevin Wilson & Sara Graziadio & Luke Vale & A Joy Allen, 2019. "Diagnostic test evaluation methodology: A systematic review of methods employed to evaluate diagnostic tests in the absence of gold standard – An update," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-25, October.
    5. Liu, Wei & Zhang, Bo & Zhang, Zhiwei & Chen, Baojiang & Zhou, Xiao-Hua, 2015. "A pseudo-likelihood approach for estimating diagnostic accuracy of multiple binary medical tests," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 85-98.
    6. Wang, Zheyu & Sebestyen, Krisztian & Monsell, Sarah E., 2017. "Model-based clustering for assessing the prognostic value of imaging biomarkers and mixed type tests," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 125-135.
    7. Bo Zhang & Zhen Chen & Paul S. Albert, 2012. "Estimating Diagnostic Accuracy of Raters Without a Gold Standard by Exploiting a Group of Experts," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 1294-1302, December.
    8. Elizabeth R. Brown, 2010. "Bayesian Estimation of the Time-Varying Sensitivity of a Diagnostic Test with Application to Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(4), pages 1266-1274, December.
    9. Pankaj Patel & Sherry Thatcher & Katerina Bezrukova, 2013. "Organizationally-relevant configurations: the value of modeling local dependence," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 287-311, January.
    10. Christian Kleiber & Achim Zeileis, 2016. "Visualizing Count Data Regressions Using Rootograms," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 70(3), pages 296-303, July.
    11. Lebret, Rémi & Iovleff, Serge & Langrognet, Florent & Biernacki, Christophe & Celeux, Gilles & Govaert, Gérard, 2015. "Rmixmod: The R Package of the Model-Based Unsupervised, Supervised, and Semi-Supervised Classification Mixmod Library," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 67(i06).
    12. Nandini Dendukuri & Ian Schiller & Lawrence Joseph & Madhukar Pai, 2012. "Bayesian Meta-Analysis of the Accuracy of a Test for Tuberculous Pleuritis in the Absence of a Gold Standard Reference," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 1285-1293, December.
    13. Grün, Bettina & Kosmidis, Ioannis & Zeileis, Achim, 2012. "Extended Beta Regression in R: Shaken, Stirred, Mixed, and Partitioned," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i11).
    14. Marc A. Scott & Kaushik Mohan & Jacques‐Antoine Gauthier, 2020. "Model‐based clustering and analysis of life history data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(3), pages 1231-1251, June.
    15. repec:rim:rimwps:17-26 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Friederike Paetz & Winfried J. Steiner, 2017. "The benefits of incorporating utility dependencies in finite mixture probit models," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 39(3), pages 793-819, July.
    17. Lluís Bermúdez & Dimitris Karlis & Isabel Morillo, 2020. "Modelling Unobserved Heterogeneity in Claim Counts Using Finite Mixture Models," Risks, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-13, January.
    18. Salvatore Ingrassia & Antonio Punzo & Giorgio Vittadini & Simona Minotti, 2015. "The Generalized Linear Mixed Cluster-Weighted Model," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 32(1), pages 85-113, April.
    19. Pei-Hsun Hsieh & Reuben Kline, 2025. "Deservingness heuristics drive redistributive choices, but weights on recipient effort vary," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    20. Frick, Hannah & Strobl, Carolin & Leisch, Friedrich & Zeileis, Achim, 2012. "Flexible Rasch Mixture Models with Package psychomix," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i07).
    21. O’Neill, Donal, 2015. "Measuring obesity in the absence of a gold standard," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 116-128.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:biomet:v:79:y:2023:i:2:p:1546-1558. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0006-341X .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.