The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparing the predictive values of diagnostic tests: sample size and analysis for paired study designs
Abstract
Background Although statistical methodology is well developed for comparing diagnostic tests in terms of their sensitivities and specificities, comparative inference about predictive values is not. Purpose In this paper we consider the design and analysis of studies comparing the positive and negative predictive values of two diagnostic tests that are measured on all subjects. Methods We focus on comparing tests using the relative positive and negative predictive values. We discuss directly estimating these quantities from the data and derive analytic variance expressions. Sample size formulas for study design ensue. Results We analyze data on patients with cystic fibrosis to illustrate the methodology. This approach is compared and contrasted with an existing regression framework that can also be used for similar analysis purposes and yields similar results. Conclusions We have developed a new approach for comparing the predictive values of two tests that gives rise to sample size formulas for study design.
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
Phases of Biomarker Development for Early Detection of Cancer
Pepe, M. S., Etzioni, R., Feng, Z., Potter, J. D., Thompson, M. L., Thornquist, M., Winget, M., & Yasui, Y. (2001) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/93.14.1054 · Cited by 1,686
Self-citation
Cited by
Carrasco, J., García, S., Rueda, M. M., Das, S., & Herrera, F. (2020) · Swarm and Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1016/j.swevo.2020.100665 · Cited by 513
Performance of Lung-RADS in the National Lung Screening Trial: A Retrospective Assessment
Pinsky, P. F., Gierada, D. S., Black, W., Munden, R., Nath, H., Aberle, D., & Kazerooni, E. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-2086 · Cited by 508
Stool DNA Testing for Screening Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia in Alaska Native People
Redwood, D. G., Asay, E. D., Blake, I. D., Sacco, P. E., Christensen, C. M., Sacco, F. D., Tiesinga, J. J., Devens, M. E., Alberts, S. R., Mahoney, D. W., et al. (2016) · Mayo Clinic Proceedings · doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.10.008 · Cited by 107
Lee, J. H., Park, S., Hwang, E. J., Goo, J. M., Lee, W. Y., Lee, S., Kim, H., Andrews, J. R., & Park, C. M. (2021) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-020-07219-4 · Cited by 47
Chapter 12: Systematic Review of Prognostic Tests
Rector, T. S., Taylor, B. C., & Wilt, T. J. (2012) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1899-y · Cited by 37
Metadata
- Authors
- Moskowitz, C. S., & Pepe, M. S.
- Venue
- Clinical Trials
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-06
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 272-279
- ISSN
- 1740-7745 (ISSN-L)
- 1740-7753
- OpenAlex
- W1990725108
- Cited by
- 174
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.75
- 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: Comparing the predictive values of diagnostic tests: sample size and analysis for paired study designs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1191/1740774506cn147oa
- The paper
- Moskowitz, C. S., & Pepe, M. S. (2006). Comparing the predictive values of diagnostic tests: sample size and analysis for paired study designs. Clinical Trials. https://doi.org/10.1191/1740774506cn147oa
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.
