The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using probabilistic reasoning
Abstract
Having a sense of the accuracy of diagnostic tests will help general practitioners to interpret and use the tests appropriately and, as in the example of chest pain, avoid unnecessary testing (doi:10.1136/bmj.b4117)
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Using the optimal thresholds, both models are very good at excluding non-bvFTD subjects and moderately good at confirming the disease.
“Hence, using the optimal thresholds, both models are very good at excluding non bvFTD subjects and moderately good at confirming the disease.”
From MRI data-driven algorithm for the diagnosis of behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (2021) · cites this paper as [42]
Citations
Cites
Diagnostic tests 4: likelihood ratios
Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7458.168 · Cited by 1,600
The urine dipstick test useful to rule out infections. A meta-analysis of the accuracy
Devillé, W. L., Yzermans, J. C., van Duijn, N. P., Bezemer, P. D., van der Windt, D. A., & Bouter, L. M. (2004) · BMC Urology · doi:10.1186/1471-2490-4-4 · Cited by 519
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
MRI data-driven algorithm for the diagnosis of behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia
Manera, A. L., Dadar, M., Van Swieten, J. C., Borroni, B., Sanchez-Valle, R., Moreno, F., Laforce Jr, R., Graff, C., Synofzik, M., Galimberti, D., et al. (2021) · Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2020-324106 · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- Doust, J.
- Affiliations
- Bond University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Doust, J.
- ORCID
- Doust, J.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2009-11-03
- Volume
- 339
- Issue
- nov03 2
- Pages
- b3823-b3823
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2011095170
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 2.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Bond University Research Portal (Bond University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Keywords
- probabilistic reasoning, diagnostic accuracy, general practitioners, chest pain, unnecessary testing, clinical decision-making, Bayesian reasoning
- MeSH terms
- Bayes Theorem, False Positive Reactions, Family Practice, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Reagent Kits, Diagnostic, Models, Statistical, Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures, Dysuria
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
