Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 14, 2026

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Estimating measures of diagnostic accuracy when some covariate information is missing
Prashni Paliwal1, Alan E Gelfand
1Women's Health Research, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510, USA. prashni.paliwal@yale.edu
Abstract:
Many biomedical data sets are concerned with relating the result of screening procedure(s) for a clinical event to the occurrence of that event. The effect of risk factors on measures of accuracy such as positive predictive value and negative predictive value is of great interest for clinicians. In this paper we propose a generic approach to estimate these measures of accuracy in the setting where an explanatory model has been fitted to the joint screening and event outcome data but information on one or more risk factors in the model is not available. We refer to these as conditional rates, i.e. rates conditioned on only a subset of risk factors. We argue that, based upon the joint distribution of the event outcome, the screening result and the risk factor occurrence, a formal expression for such a rate can be obtained. This expression is a function of model parameters and thus can be estimated once the model has been fitted. Inference within the Bayesian framework is particularly attractive since simulation based model fitting straightforwardly yields samples from the posterior distribution of any conditional rate of interest. We perform a simulation study to compare these estimated conditional rates with frequently used ad hoc estimates. Differences can be substantial. We also illustrate the proposed methodology to compute conditional positive predictive value for a screening mammography data set. The proposed approach is also applicable when there are multiple diagnostic screening test outcomes.
Related Concept Videos
What are Estimates?
The estimate for the mean of a sample is denoted by ͞x, whereas the mean of the population is designated as μ. Further, parameters such as the mean,...
Confounding in Epidemiological Studies
Variability: Analysis
The range is a simple measure of variability, indicating the difference between the highest and...
Censoring Survival Data
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5% chance...
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
