The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bayesian Estimation of Disease Prevalence and the Parameters of Diagnostic Tests in the Absence of a Gold Standard
Abstract
It is common in population screening surveys or in the investigation of new diagnostic tests to have results from one or more tests investigating the same condition or disease, none of which can be considered a gold standard. For example, two methods often used in population-based surveys for estimating the prevalence of a parasitic or other infection are stool examinations and serologic testing. However, it is known that results from stool examinations generally underestimate the prevalence, while serology generally results in overestimation. Using a Bayesian approach, simultaneous inferences about the population prevalence and the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of each diagnostic test are possible. The methods presented here can be applied to each test separately or to two or more tests combined. Marginal posterior densities of all parameters are estimated using the Gibbs sampler. The techniques are applied to the estimation of the prevalence of Strongyloides infection and to the investigation of the diagnostic test properties of stool examinations and serologic testing, using data from a survey of all Cambodian refugees who arrived in Montreal, Canada, during an 8-month period.
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
Sampling-based approaches to calculating marginal densities
Gelfand, A. E., & Smith, A. F. M. (1990) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1990.10476213 · Cited by 6,606
ESTIMATING PREVALENCE FROM THE RESULTS OF A SCREENING TEST
ROGAN, W. J., & GLADEN, B. (1978) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112510 · Cited by 1,001
Cited by
Classification in the Presence of Label Noise: A Survey
Frenay, B., & Verleysen, M. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2013.2292894 · Cited by 1,777
Nanda, K., McCrory, D. C., Myers, E. R., Bastian, L. A., Hasselblad, V., Hickey, J. D., & Matchar, D. B. (2000) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-132-10-200005160-00009 · Cited by 1,089
Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods
Rutjes, A., Reitsma, J., Coomarasamy, A., Khan, K., & Bossuyt, P. (2007) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta11500 · Cited by 524
Reitsma, J. B., Rutjes, A. W. S., Khan, K. S., Coomarasamy, A., & Bossuyt, P. M. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.02.005 · Cited by 405
Reflection on modern methods: five myths about measurement error in epidemiological research
van Smeden, M., Lash, T. L., & Groenwold, R. H. H. (2020) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyz251 · Cited by 173
Metadata
- Authors
- Joseph, L., Gyorkos, T. W., & Coupal, L.
- Venue
- American Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1995-02-01
- Volume
- 141
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 263-272
- ISSN
- 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-6256
- OpenAlex
- W2159774315
- Cited by
- 705
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 5.21
- 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: Bayesian Estimation of Disease Prevalence and the Parameters of Diagnostic Tests in the Absence of a Gold Standard. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117428
- The paper
- Joseph, L., Gyorkos, T. W., & Coupal, L. (1995). Bayesian Estimation of Disease Prevalence and the Parameters of Diagnostic Tests in the Absence of a Gold Standard. American Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117428
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.