4.6 Article

Bayesian and influence function-based empirical likelihoods for inference of sensitivity in diagnostic tests

Journal

STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH
Volume 29, Issue 12, Pages 3457-3491

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0962280220929042

Keywords

Bayesian inference; confidence intervals; empirical likelihood; influence function; sensitivity

Funding

  1. Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) (National Institutes of Health) [U01 AG024904]
  2. DOD ADNI (Department of Defense) [W81XWH-122-0012]
  3. National Institute on Aging
  4. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
  5. Alzheimers Association
  6. Alzheimers Drug Discovery Foundation
  7. Araclon Biotech
  8. Biogen
  9. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
  10. CereSpir, Inc.
  11. Cogstate
  12. Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  13. Eli Lilly and Company
  14. EuroImmun
  15. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd
  16. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  17. ADNI clinical sites in Canada
  18. AbbVie
  19. BioClinica, Inc.
  20. Eisai Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In medical diagnostic studies, a diagnostic test can be evaluated based on its sensitivity under a desired specificity. Existing methods for inference on sensitivity include normal approximation-based approaches and empirical likelihood (EL)-based approaches. These methods generally have poor performance when the specificity is high, and some require choosing smoothing parameters. We propose a new influence function-based empirical likelihood method and Bayesian empirical likelihood methods to overcome such problems. Numerical studies are performed to compare the finite sample performance of the proposed approaches with existing methods. The proposed methods are shown to perform better in terms of both coverage probability and interval length. A real data set from Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ANDI) is analyzed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available