Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Nonparametric worst-case bounds for publication bias on the summary receiver operating characteristic curve

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2401.05124 v1 pith:AHALTOKJ submitted 2024-01-10 stat.ME

classification stat.ME
keywords sroccurveboundspublicationworst-casecurvesdiagnosticselection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

The summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve has been recommended as one important meta-analytical summary to represent the accuracy of a diagnostic test in the presence of heterogeneous cutoff values. However, selective publication of diagnostic studies for meta-analysis can induce publication bias (PB) on the estimate of the SROC curve. Several sensitivity analysis methods have been developed to quantify PB on the SROC curve, and all these methods utilize parametric selection functions to model the selective publication mechanism. The main contribution of this article is to propose a new sensitivity analysis approach that derives the worst-case bounds for the SROC curve by adopting nonparametric selection functions under minimal assumptions. The estimation procedures of the worst-case bounds use the Monte Carlo method to obtain the SROC curves along with the corresponding area under the curves in the worst case where the maximum possible PB under a range of marginal selection probabilities is considered. We apply the proposed method to a real-world meta-analysis to show that the worst-case bounds of the SROC curves can provide useful insights for discussing the robustness of meta-analytical findings on diagnostic test accuracy.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools