The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Model‐based screening by risk with application to down's syndrome
Abstract
Screening for a disorder may be carried out by assessing the risk that an individual is affected given the values of variables whose distributions alter when the disorder is present. An optimal screening policy is obtained by identifying those individuals whose risk is greater than some cut‐off value. This paper summarizes the way in which risk is derived from the likelihood ratio of being affected by the disorder, and compares three different methods of estimating the likelihood ratio, namely direct estimation, logistic regression and distribution modelling. For continuous variables that have a multivariate normal distribution, screening by risk is equivalent to the use of quadratic discrimination. The paper shows how estimates of the risk and associated detection and false positive rates can be derived for a screening policy which uses specified risk cut‐offs. Screening by risk has the counter‐intuitive property that as the separation in the distribution of screening variables between affected and unaffected individuals increases, the detection and false positive rates may both increase. The approach is explored using data on antenatal screening for Down's syndrome. The method of choice is model‐based; the model is described and tested for goodness of fit. Complications arising from outliers and non‐normality must be overcome before an appropriate assessment of risk can be made. The concept of shrinkage is used to estimate the detection and false positive rates that may be expected in a new data set.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cox, D. R., & Hinkley, D. V. (1974) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2887-0 · Cited by 3,089
Regression, Prediction and Shrinkage
Copas, J. B. (1983) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1983.tb01258.x · Cited by 612
Cited by
Wald, N. J., Rodeck, C., Hackshaw, A. K., Walters, J., Chitty, L., & Mackinson, A. M. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7110 · Cited by 585
Wald, N. J., Watt, H. C., & Hackshaw, A. K. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199908123410701 · Cited by 530
Uterine artery Doppler at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks in the prediction of pre‐eclampsia
Plasencia, W., Maiz, N., Bonino, S., Kaihura, C., & Nicolaides, K. H. (2007) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.5157 · Cited by 425
Antenatal Screening for Down's Syndrome
Wald, N. J., Kennard, A., Hackshaw, A., & McGuire, A. (1997) · Journal of Medical Screening · doi:10.1177/096914139700400402 · Cited by 406
Wald, N. J., Rodeck, C., Hackshaw, A. K., Walters, J., Chitty, L., & Mackinson, A. M. (2003) · Journal of Medical Screening · doi:10.1258/096914103321824133 · Cited by 331
Metadata
- Authors
- Royston, P., & Thompson, S. G.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1992-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 257-268
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2144267311
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.65
- 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.