Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 326

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Verification Bias on Screening for Prostate Cancer by Measurement of Prostate-Specific Antigen

Punglia, Rinaa S., D'Amico, Anthony V., Catalona, William J., Roehl, Kimberly A., Kuntz, Karen M.·2003·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The sensitivity and specificity of a screening test are biased when disease status is not verified in all subjects and when the likelihood of confirmation depends on the test result itself. We assessed the screening characteristics of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement after correction for verification bias. METHODS: Between 1995 and 2001, 6691 men underwent PSA-based screening for prostate cancer. Of these men, 705 (11 percent) subsequently underwent biopsy of the prostate. Under the assumption that the chance of undergoing a biopsy depends only on the PSA-test result and other observed clinical variables, we used a mathematical model to estimate adjusted receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: Adjusting for verification bias significantly increased the area under the ROC curve (i.e., the overall diagnostic performance) of the PSA test, as compared with an unadjusted analysis (0.86 vs. 0.69, P<0.001, for men less than 60 years of age; 0.72 vs. 0.62, P=0.008, for men 60 years of age or older). If the threshold PSA value for undergoing biopsy were set at 4.1 ng per milliliter, 82 percent of cancers in younger men and 65 percent of cancers in older men would be missed. A digital rectal examination that is abnormal but not suspicious for cancer does not affect the overall performance characteristics of the test. CONCLUSIONS: A lower threshold level of PSA for recommending prostate biopsy, particularly in younger men, may improve the clinical value of the PSA test.

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa021659

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 326

Metadata

Authors
Punglia, R. S., D'Amico, A. V., Catalona, W. J., Roehl, K. A., & Kuntz, K. M.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2003-07-24
Volume
349
Issue
4
Pages
335-342
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2157794801
Cited by
326
References
1
FWCI
31.31
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: Effect of Verification Bias on Screening for Prostate Cancer by Measurement of Prostate-Specific Antigen. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa021659
The paper
Punglia, R. S., D'Amico, A. V., Catalona, W. J., Roehl, K. A., & Kuntz, K. M. (2003). Effect of Verification Bias on Screening for Prostate Cancer by Measurement of Prostate-Specific Antigen. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa021659

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.