Back

Optimising a coordinate ascent algorithm for the meta-analysis of test accuracy studies

Baragilly, M. H.; Willis, B. H.

2022-12-08 bioinformatics
10.1101/2022.12.05.519131 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Meta-analysis may be used to summarise a tests accuracy. Often the sensitivity and specificity are the measures of interest and as these are correlated a bivariate random effects model is commonly used to fit the data. This model has five parameters and it may be optimised using a Newton-Raphson based algorithm providing adequate initial values of the parameters are identified. Numerical methods may be used to estimate robust initial values but estimating these is computationally expensive and it is not clear whether they provide a significant advantage over closed form methods in terms of reducing bias, mean square error, average relative error, and coverage probability. Here we consider six closed form methods for estimating the initial values of the parameters for a co-ordinate ascent algorithm used to fit the bivariate model and compare them with numerically derived robust initial values. Using simulation studies we demonstrate that all the closed form methods lead to a reduction in computation time of around 80% and rank higher overall across the metrics when compared with the robust initial values method. Although no initial values estimator dominated the others across all parameters and metrics, the two-step Hedges-Olkin estimator ranked highest overall across the different scenarios.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Statistics in Medicine
34 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.7%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 12%
14.9%
3
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
10.6%
4
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 4%
7.3%
50% of probability mass above
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 17%
6.4%
6
Research Synthesis Methods
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
7
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 5%
3.6%
8
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
9
BioData Mining
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.8%
10
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
11
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.5%
12
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
13
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
14
Genetic Epidemiology
46 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
15
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
16
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
17
Bioinformatics Advances
184 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
18
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
351 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
19
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
20
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
21
Forensic Science International: Genetics
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.7%
22
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
23
Medical Decision Making
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
24
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
25
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
26
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 65%
0.7%
27
Briefings in Bioinformatics
326 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
28
Biostatistics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.5%
29
BMC Research Notes
29 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.5%
30
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%