IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/amstat/v71y2017i1p81-87.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Point Estimates of Test Sensitivity and Specificity from Sample Means and Variances

Author

Listed:
  • Richard G. Spencer
  • Benjamin D. Cortese
  • Vanessa A. Lukas
  • Nancy Pleshko

Abstract

In a wide variety of biomedical and clinical research studies, sample statistics from diagnostic marker measurements are presented as a means of distinguishing between two populations, such as with and without disease. Intuitively, a larger difference between the mean values of a marker for the two populations, and a smaller spread of values within each population, should lead to more reliable classification rules based on this marker. We formalize this intuitive notion by deriving practical, new, closed-form expressions for the sensitivity and specificity of three different discriminant tests defined in terms of the sample means and standard deviations of diagnostic marker measurements. The three discriminant tests evaluated are based, respectively, on the Euclidean distance and the Mahalanobis distance between means, and a likelihood ratio analysis. Expressions for the effects of measurement error are also presented. Our final expressions assume that the diagnostic markers follow independent normal distributions for the two populations, although it will be clear that other known distributions may be similarly analyzed. We then discuss applications drawn from the medical literature, although the formalism is clearly not restricted to that application.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard G. Spencer & Benjamin D. Cortese & Vanessa A. Lukas & Nancy Pleshko, 2017. "Point Estimates of Test Sensitivity and Specificity from Sample Means and Variances," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 71(1), pages 81-87, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:amstat:v:71:y:2017:i:1:p:81-87
    DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2016.1239589
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00031305.2016.1239589
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00031305.2016.1239589?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:amstat:v:71:y:2017:i:1:p:81-87. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/UTAS20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.