Diagnosis using predictive probabilities without cut‐offs

Standard diagnostic test procedures involve dichotomization of serologic test results. The critical value or cut-off is determined to optimize a trade off between sensitivity and specificity of the resulting test. When sampled units from a population are tested, they are allocated as either infected or not according to the test outcome. Units with values high above the cut-off are treated the same as units with values just barely above the cut-off, and similarly for values below the cut-off. There is an inherent information loss in dichotomization. We thus develop a diagnostic screening method based on data that are not dichotomized within the Bayesian paradigm. Our method determines the predictive probability of infection for each individual in a sample based on having observed a specific serologic test result and provides inferences about the prevalence of infection in the population sampled. Our fully Bayesian method is briefly compared with a previously developed frequentist method. We illustrate the methodology with serologic data that have been previously analysed in the veterinary literature, and also discuss applications to screening for disease in humans. The method applies more generally to a variation of the classic parametric 2-population discriminant analysis problem. Here, in addition to training data, additional units are sampled and the goal is to determine their population status, and the prevalence(s) of the subpopulation(s) from which they were sampled.

[1]  M. Pepe The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction , 2003 .

[2]  Joseph L. Gastwirth,et al.  Bayesian analysis of screening data: Application to AIDS in blood donors , 1991 .

[3]  B. Mallick,et al.  Bayesian classification of tumours by using gene expression data , 2005 .

[4]  M. Thurmond,et al.  Effect of congenitally acquired Neospora caninum infection on risk of abortion and subsequent abortions in dairy cattle. , 1997, American journal of veterinary research.

[5]  B. Gladen,et al.  Estimating prevalence from the results of a screening test. , 1978, American journal of epidemiology.

[6]  Tapabrata Maiti,et al.  Hierarchical Bayesian Neural Networks , 2004 .

[7]  W O Johnson,et al.  Estimation of sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests and disease prevalence when the true disease state is unknown. , 2000, Preventive veterinary medicine.

[8]  W. Gilks,et al.  Adaptive Rejection Sampling for Gibbs Sampling , 1992 .

[9]  E J Bedrick,et al.  Bayesian accelerated failure time analysis with application to veterinary epidemiology. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  F. Schröder,et al.  Editorial: Priorities in future research in prostate cancer screening , 2002, European Journal of Epidemiology.

[11]  S. J. Press,et al.  Choosing between Logistic Regression and Discriminant Analysis , 1978 .

[12]  M. Thurmond,et al.  Neospora caninum antibodies in cows during pregnancy as a predictor of congenital infection and abortion. , 1997, The Journal of parasitology.

[13]  W. Johnson,et al.  A method of probability diagnostic assignment that applies bayes theorem for use in serologic diagnostics, using an example of Neospora caninum infection in cattle. , 2002, American journal of veterinary research.

[14]  Wesley O. Johnson,et al.  Hierarchical models for estimating herd prevalence and test accuracy in the absence of a gold standard , 2003 .

[15]  W O Johnson,et al.  Screening without a "gold standard": the Hui-Walter paradigm revisited. , 2001, American journal of epidemiology.

[16]  Marios A. G. Viana,et al.  Bayesian estimates of predictive value and related parameters of a diagnostic test , 1992 .

[17]  L. Tierney Markov Chains for Exploring Posterior Distributions , 1994 .