Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 496

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests

Begg, Colin B.·1987·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

Diagnostic tests are traditionally characterized by simple measures of efficacy such as the sensitivity and the specificity. These measures, though widely recognized and easy to understand, are subject to definitional arbitrariness. Moreover, studies constructed to estimate the sensitivity and specificity are susceptible to a variety of biases. In this paper the various potential problems are described with reference to examples from the diagnostic literature. These difficulties have implications for the design of diagnostic test evaluations, and the choice of suitable measures of test efficacy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.4780060402

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 496

Metadata

Authors
Begg, C. B.
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1987-06
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
411-423
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W2032012575
Cited by
496
References
3
FWCI
8.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.