On the interpretation of test sensitivity in the two-test two-population problem: Assumptions matter

Preventive Veterinary Medicine

Volumn 91, Issue 2-4, 2009, Pages 116-121

  Johnson, Wesley O ^a   Gardner, Ian A ^b   Metoyer, Candace N ^b   Branscum, Adam J ^c  

^a Ringgold Standard Institution Informatics   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian modeling; Diagnostic test accuracy; Hui Walter model; Sensitivity; WinBUGS

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ANIMAL MODEL; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; PREVALENCE; PROBABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; SWINE; SWINE DISEASE;

ANIMALS; BAYES THEOREM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; MODELS, ANIMAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PREVALENCE; PROBABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SWINE; SWINE DISEASES;

EID: 68549097789     PISSN: 01675877     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.06.006     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Albert P.S., and Dodd L.E. A cautionary note on the robustness of latent class models for estimating diagnostic error without a gold standard. Biometrics 60 (2004) 427-435
2. Branscum A.J., Gardner I.A., and Johnson W.O. Estimation of diagnostic-test sensitivity and specificity through Bayesian modeling. Prev. Vet. Med. 68 (2005) 145-163
3. Dendukuri N., and Joseph L. Bayesian approaches to modeling the conditional dependence between multiple diagnostic tests. Biometrics 57 (2001) 158-167
4. Enøe C., Georgiadis M.P., and Johnson W.O. Estimation of sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests and disease prevalence when the true disease status is unknown. Prev. Vet. Med. 45 (2000) 61-81
5. Georgiadis M., Johnson W.O., Gardner I.A., and Singh R. Correlation-adjusted estimation of sensitivity and specificity of two diagnostic tests. Appl. Stat. 52 (2003) 63-76
6. Greiner M., and Gardner I.A. Epidemiologic issues in the validation of veterinary diagnostic tests. Prev. Vet. Med. 45 (2000) 3-22
7. Gustafson P. On model expansion, model contraction, identifiability and prior information: two illustrative scenarios involving mismeasured variables. Stat. Sci. 20 (2005) 111-140
8. Hanson T.E., Johnson W.O., and Gardner I.A. Hierarchical models for the estimation of disease prevalence and the sensitivity and specificity of dependent tests in the absence of a gold-standard. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 8 (2003) 223-239
9. Hui S.L., and Walter S.D. Estimating the error rates of diagnostic tests. Biometrics 36 (1980) 167-171
10. Johnson W.O., Gastwirth J.L., and Pearson L.M. Screening without a 'gold standard': the Hui-Walter paradigm revisited. Am. J. Epidemiol. 153 (2001) 921-924
11. Johnson W.O., and Hanson T.E. Comment on 'On model expansion, model contraction, identifiability and prior information: two illustrative scenarios involving mismeasured variables'. Stat. Sci. 20 (2005) 111-140
12. Joseph L., Gyorkos T.W., and Coupal L. Bayesian estimation of disease prevalence and the parameters of diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold standard. Am. J. Epidemiol. 141 (1995) 263-272
13. Lunn D.J., Thomas A., Best N., and Spiegelhalter D. WinBUGS-a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat. Comput. 10 (2000) 325-337
14. Pepe M.S., and Janes H. Insights into latent class analysis of diagnostic test performance. Biostatistics 8 (2007) 474-484
15. Toft N., Jørgensen E., and Højsgaard S. Diagnosing diagnostic tests: evaluating the assumptions underlying the estimation of sensitivity and specificity in the absence of a gold standard. Prev. Vet. Med. 68 (2005) 19-33
16. Vacek P.M. The effect of conditional dependence on the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Biometrics 41 (1985) 959-968