On the use and computation of likelihood ratios in clinical chemistry.

The clinical relevance of likelihood ratios (L-values) for revising the physician's diagnostic probabilities has been recognized. However, the calculation of L-values, particularly in the case of quantitative or mixed quantitative-binary test results, raises problems that have not yet been addressed. Based on a very general assumption that yields a simple functional form for the likelihood ratio, a method is developed that allows such calculations regardless of the nature and the number of clinical laboratory tests to be interpreted simultaneously. Hence the notion of predictive value (posterior probability) is extended from binary or dichotomized tests to quantitative tests, and from univariate to multivariate clinical laboratory results. The simplicity and flexibility of this approach eliminates difficulties in computation arising from the addition of new data to an existing data base. It is hoped that this method will now allow L-values to be reported along with the original test results in daily laboratory practice.

[1]  E. K. Harris,et al.  On the use of statistical models of within-person variation in long-term studies of healthy individuals. , 1980, Clinical chemistry.

[2]  Day Ne,et al.  A GENERAL MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD DISCRIMINANT , 1967 .

[3]  B. Kågedal,et al.  Determination of a trivariate reference region for free thyroxine index, free triiodothyronine index, and thyrotropin from results obtained in a health survey of middle-aged women. , 1978, Clinical chemistry.

[4]  P. Winkel,et al.  The normal region--a multivariate problem. , 1972, Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation.

[5]  J. Chapelle,et al.  Stepwise probit discrimination with specific application to short-term prognosis in acute myocardial infarction. , 1981, Computers and biomedical research, an international journal.

[6]  J. Cornfield Joint dependence of risk of coronary heart disease on serum cholesterol and systolic blood pressure: a discriminant function analysis. , 1962, Federation proceedings.

[7]  F W Sunderman,et al.  Current concepts of "normal values," "reference values," and "discrimination values," in clinical chemistry. , 1975, Clinical chemistry.

[8]  E. A. Johnson,et al.  Laboratory data analysis system. 3. Multivariate normality. , 1972, American journal of clinical pathology.

[9]  A. Feinstein,et al.  Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. , 1978, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  Adelin Albert,et al.  Advanced interpretation of clinical laboratory data , 1982 .

[11]  E. Hische,et al.  Monoclonal immunoglobulins demonstrable in cerebrospinal fluid by use of cellulose acetate electrophoresis. , 1980, Clinical chemistry.

[12]  A. Albert Atypicality indices as reference values for laboratory data. , 1981, American journal of clinical pathology.

[13]  E. Hische,et al.  Application of Bayes's theorem to results of quantitative clinical chemical determinations. , 1979, Clinical chemistry.

[14]  N. Day,et al.  A general maximum likelihood discriminant. , 1967, Biometrics.

[15]  E. Hische,et al.  The cerebrospinal fluid immunoglobulin G index as a diagnostic aid in multiple sclerosis: a Bayesian approach. , 1982 .

[16]  U. Gessner,et al.  Bayes' theorem and quantitative clinical chemical determination. , 1981, Clinical chemistry.

[17]  J. Anderson Separate sample logistic discrimination , 1972 .