The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary ROC analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysis
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
Linear Mixed Models for Longitudinal Data
Verbeke, G. (1997) · Lecture Notes in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-2294-1_3 · Cited by 3,506
Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.
Lijmer, J. G. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1061 · Cited by 1,861
Linear mixed models for longitudinal data
(2000) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/b98969 · Cited by 818
Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: a comparative study
Smith, T. C., Spiegelhalter, D. J., & Thomas, A. (1995) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780142408 · Cited by 568 · cited 2×
“The variance of the NLMIXED estimates are lower than the fully Bayesian estimates, as expected, given that the Bayesian method takes better account of the uncertainty in the estimation of τ [15,33].”
MethodIrwig, L. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7338.669 · Cited by 246
Meta‐analysis for 2 × 2 tables: A bayesian approach
Carlin, J. B. (1992) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780110202 · Cited by 164
Cited by
Reitsma, J. B., Glas, A. S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Bossuyt, P. M., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 · Cited by 3,369
“As a result, few if any app cation of this method can be found in the medical literatur although recently a less complicated way of fitting the hiera chical sROC model has been described [38].”
MethodSystematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy
Leeflang, M. M. G., Deeks, J. J., Gatsonis, C., & Bossuyt, P. M. M. (2008) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-149-12-200812160-00008 · Cited by 1,124
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy
(2023) · doi:10.1002/9781119756194 · Cited by 757
Mant, J., Doust, J., Roalfe, A., Barton, P., Cowie, M., Glasziou, P., Mant, D., McManus, R., Holder, R., Deeks, J., et al. (2009) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta13320 · Cited by 498
metandi: Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical logistic regression
Harbord, R. M., & Whiting, P. (2009) · The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · doi:10.1177/1536867x0900900203 · Cited by 453
Metadata
- Authors
- Macaskill, P.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-09
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 925-932
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2091166093
- Cited by
- 210
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 6.92
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary ROC analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.12.019
- The paper
- Macaskill, P. (2004). Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary ROC analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.12.019
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.
