The information in diagnostic tests
He, S.; Locke, B. W.; Joseph, J. W.; Liebovitz, D. M.; Rohlfsen, C.; Goff, A.; Safari, P.; Kabrhel, C.; Mohamed, A.; Raja, A. S.; Goldstein, J. N.
Show abstract
Diagnostic information measures how much uncertainty a test is expected to resolve before its result is known, using sensitivity, specificity, and a stated starting disease probability; worked examples show how starting probability changes expected learning, why tests with similar conventional accuracy can provide different information, and how that expectation differs from the evidence supplied by an individual result; across 273 pooled diagnostic profiles from 210 reviews, we place this established measure on an empirical reference scale for interpreting and reporting diagnostic information across tests and thresholds, with the median profile resolving 29.2% of starting uncertainty at a standardised 20% starting probability.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Incorporating Preprints in Systematic Reviews: A Preliminary Study of a Novel Method for Rapid Evidence Synthesis 93%
- Beyond Metrics to Methods: A Scoping Review of Large Language Models for Detection of Social Drivers of Health in Clinical Notes 92%
- Collaborative Large Language Models for Automated Data Extraction in Living Systematic Reviews 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Machine learning for identifying relevant publications in updates of systematic reviews of diagnostic test studies 95%
- Exploring the potential of Claude 2 for risk of bias assessment: Using a large language model to assess randomized controlled trials with RoB 2 93%
- Evaluation of the replicability of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of the effects of health interventions 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Scoping Review of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Clinical Trial Risk Assessment 90%
- Finding Long-COVID: Temporal Topic Modeling of Electronic Health Records from the N3C and RECOVER Programs 90%
- Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to original abstracts using an artificial intelligence output detector, plagiarism detector, and blinded human reviewers 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for network meta-analysis: a scoping review 91%
- Re-use of trial data in the first 10 years of the data-sharing policy of the Annals of Internal Medicine: a survey of published studies 91%
- Strength of Statistical Evidence for the Efficacy of Cancer Drugs: A Bayesian Re-Analysis of Trials Supporting FDA Approval 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.