当使用专家小组作为参考标准时,诊断测试准确性估计中的偏差驱动因素:模拟研究。

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
B E Kellerhuis, K Jenniskens, E Schuit, L Hooft, K G M Moons, J B Reitsma
{"title":"当使用专家小组作为参考标准时,诊断测试准确性估计中的偏差驱动因素:模拟研究。","authors":"B E Kellerhuis, K Jenniskens, E Schuit, L Hooft, K G M Moons, J B Reitsma","doi":"10.1186/s12874-025-02557-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Expert panels are often used as a reference standard when no gold standard is available in diagnostic test accuracy research. It is often unclear what study and expert panel characteristics produce the best estimates of diagnostic test accuracy. We simulated a large range of scenarios to assess the impact of study and expert panel characteristics on index test diagnostic accuracy estimates.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Simulations were performed in which an expert panel was the reference standard to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of an index diagnostic test. Diagnostic accuracy was determined by combining probability estimates of target condition presence, provided by experts using four component reference tests, through a predefined threshold. Study and panel characteristics were varied in several scenarios: target condition prevalence, accuracy of component reference tests, expert panel size, study population size, and random or systematic differences between expert's probability estimates. The total bias in each scenario was quantified using mean squared error.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When estimating an index test with 80% sensitivity and 70% specificity, bias in estimates was hardly affected by the study population size or the number of experts. Prevalence had a large effect on bias, scenarios with a prevalence of 0.5 estimated sensitivity between 63.3% and 76.7% and specificity between 56.1% and 68.7%, whereas scenarios with a prevalence of 0.2 estimated sensitivity between 48.5% and 73.3% and specificity between 65.5% and 68.7%. Improved reference tests also reduced bias. Scenarios with four component tests of 80% sensitivity and specificity estimated index test sensitivity between 60.1% and 77.4% and specificity between 62.9% and 69.1%, whereas scenarios with four component tests of 70% sensitivity and specificity estimated index test sensitivity between 48.5% and 73.4% and specificity between 56.1% and 67.0%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Bias in accuracy estimates when using an expert panel will increase if the component reference tests are less accurate. Prevalence, the true value of the index test accuracy, and random or systematic differences between experts can also impact the amount of bias, but the amount and even direction will vary between scenarios.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"25 1","pages":"106"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12016307/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Drivers of bias in diagnostic test accuracy estimates when using expert panels as a reference standard: a simulation study.\",\"authors\":\"B E Kellerhuis, K Jenniskens, E Schuit, L Hooft, K G M Moons, J B Reitsma\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12874-025-02557-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Expert panels are often used as a reference standard when no gold standard is available in diagnostic test accuracy research. It is often unclear what study and expert panel characteristics produce the best estimates of diagnostic test accuracy. We simulated a large range of scenarios to assess the impact of study and expert panel characteristics on index test diagnostic accuracy estimates.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Simulations were performed in which an expert panel was the reference standard to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of an index diagnostic test. Diagnostic accuracy was determined by combining probability estimates of target condition presence, provided by experts using four component reference tests, through a predefined threshold. Study and panel characteristics were varied in several scenarios: target condition prevalence, accuracy of component reference tests, expert panel size, study population size, and random or systematic differences between expert's probability estimates. The total bias in each scenario was quantified using mean squared error.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When estimating an index test with 80% sensitivity and 70% specificity, bias in estimates was hardly affected by the study population size or the number of experts. Prevalence had a large effect on bias, scenarios with a prevalence of 0.5 estimated sensitivity between 63.3% and 76.7% and specificity between 56.1% and 68.7%, whereas scenarios with a prevalence of 0.2 estimated sensitivity between 48.5% and 73.3% and specificity between 65.5% and 68.7%. Improved reference tests also reduced bias. Scenarios with four component tests of 80% sensitivity and specificity estimated index test sensitivity between 60.1% and 77.4% and specificity between 62.9% and 69.1%, whereas scenarios with four component tests of 70% sensitivity and specificity estimated index test sensitivity between 48.5% and 73.4% and specificity between 56.1% and 67.0%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Bias in accuracy estimates when using an expert panel will increase if the component reference tests are less accurate. Prevalence, the true value of the index test accuracy, and random or systematic differences between experts can also impact the amount of bias, but the amount and even direction will vary between scenarios.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"106\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12016307/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02557-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02557-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在诊断测试准确性研究中,当没有金标准可用时,专家小组经常被用作参考标准。通常不清楚什么研究和专家小组的特征产生诊断测试准确性的最佳估计。我们模拟了大范围的场景来评估研究和专家小组特征对指数测试诊断准确性估计的影响。方法:以专家小组为参考标准进行模拟,以估计指标诊断试验的敏感性和特异性。通过一个预定义的阈值,结合专家使用四组分参考测试提供的目标条件存在的概率估计来确定诊断准确性。研究和小组特征在几种情况下是不同的:目标条件的患病率、成分参考测试的准确性、专家小组规模、研究人口规模以及专家概率估计之间的随机或系统差异。使用均方误差对每种情况下的总偏差进行量化。结果:在估计敏感度为80%、特异性为70%的指标试验时,估计偏差几乎不受研究人群规模或专家数量的影响。患病率对偏倚有很大影响,患病率为0.5的情况下,估计敏感性在63.3%至76.7%之间,特异性在56.1%至68.7%之间,而患病率为0.2的情况下,估计敏感性在48.5%至73.3%之间,特异性在65.5%至68.7%之间。改进的参考测试也减少了偏倚。敏感度和特异度为80%的四组分试验的估计指标试验灵敏度在60.1% ~ 77.4%之间,特异度在62.9% ~ 69.1%之间,而敏感度和特异度为70%的四组分试验的估计指标试验灵敏度在48.5% ~ 73.4%之间,特异度在56.1% ~ 67.0%之间。结论:当使用专家小组时,如果成分参考测试的准确性较低,准确度估计的偏差会增加。普遍程度、指数测试的真实值准确性以及专家之间的随机或系统差异也会影响偏差的数量,但偏差的数量甚至方向在不同的情况下都会有所不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Drivers of bias in diagnostic test accuracy estimates when using expert panels as a reference standard: a simulation study.

Background: Expert panels are often used as a reference standard when no gold standard is available in diagnostic test accuracy research. It is often unclear what study and expert panel characteristics produce the best estimates of diagnostic test accuracy. We simulated a large range of scenarios to assess the impact of study and expert panel characteristics on index test diagnostic accuracy estimates.

Methods: Simulations were performed in which an expert panel was the reference standard to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of an index diagnostic test. Diagnostic accuracy was determined by combining probability estimates of target condition presence, provided by experts using four component reference tests, through a predefined threshold. Study and panel characteristics were varied in several scenarios: target condition prevalence, accuracy of component reference tests, expert panel size, study population size, and random or systematic differences between expert's probability estimates. The total bias in each scenario was quantified using mean squared error.

Results: When estimating an index test with 80% sensitivity and 70% specificity, bias in estimates was hardly affected by the study population size or the number of experts. Prevalence had a large effect on bias, scenarios with a prevalence of 0.5 estimated sensitivity between 63.3% and 76.7% and specificity between 56.1% and 68.7%, whereas scenarios with a prevalence of 0.2 estimated sensitivity between 48.5% and 73.3% and specificity between 65.5% and 68.7%. Improved reference tests also reduced bias. Scenarios with four component tests of 80% sensitivity and specificity estimated index test sensitivity between 60.1% and 77.4% and specificity between 62.9% and 69.1%, whereas scenarios with four component tests of 70% sensitivity and specificity estimated index test sensitivity between 48.5% and 73.4% and specificity between 56.1% and 67.0%.

Conclusions: Bias in accuracy estimates when using an expert panel will increase if the component reference tests are less accurate. Prevalence, the true value of the index test accuracy, and random or systematic differences between experts can also impact the amount of bias, but the amount and even direction will vary between scenarios.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信