Simple methods for comparing two predictive values with incomplete data

Other OA: closed public-domain-us
Full text JSON View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-09-01 ⓘ

The authors propose two simple statistical methods for comparing predictive values with incomplete data, demonstrating improved efficiency over ad-hoc approaches through simulations and application to an observational study detecting endometriosis.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-08-26 · read from full text ⓘ

This paper introduces two simple statistical methods for comparing the predictive values of two binary diagnostic tests when data are incomplete. The proposed test statistics require only minor modifications to existing weighted generalized score statistics, avoiding the need for complex iterative algorithms associated with maximum likelihood approaches. Simulation studies indicate that these new methods are more efficient than ad-hoc techniques that exclude subjects with missing information. Relevance to endometriosis: listed as one indication for GnRH antagonists, though the paper's main focus is uterine fibroids.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Statistical methods have been well developed for comparing the predictive values of two binary diagnostic tests under a paired design. However, existing methods do not make allowance for incomplete data. Although maximum likelihood based method can be used to deal with incomplete data, it requires iterative algorithm for implementation. A simple and easily implemented statistical method is therefore needed. Simple methods exist for comparing two sensitivities or specificities with incomplete data but such simple methods are not available for comparing two predictive values with incomplete data. In this paper, we propose two simple methods for comparing two predictive values with incomplete data. The test statistics derived by these two methods are simple to compute, only involving some minor modification of the existing weighted generalized score statistics with complete data. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed methods are more efficient than the ad-hoc method that only uses the subjects wit complete data. As an illustration, the proposed methods are applied to an observational study comparing two non-invasive methods in detecting endometriosis.
Full text 1,269 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
ABSTRACT Statistical methods have been well developed for comparing the predictive values of two binary diagnostic tests under a paired design. However, existing methods do not make allowance for incomplete data. Although maximum likelihood based method can be used to deal with incomplete data, it requires iterative algorithm for implementation. A simple and easily implemented statistical method is therefore needed. Simple methods exist for comparing two sensitivities or specificities with incomplete data but such simple methods are not available for comparing two predictive values with incomplete data. In this paper, we propose two simple methods for comparing two predictive values with incomplete data. The test statistics derived by these two methods are simple to compute, only involving some minor modification of the existing weighted generalized score statistics with complete data. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed methods are more efficient than the ad-hoc method that only uses the subjects wit complete data. As an illustration, the proposed methods are applied to an observational study comparing two non-invasive methods in detecting endometriosis. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Condition tags

endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Algorithms Algorithms Algorithms Algorithms Algorithms Algorithms Algorithms Algorithms Algorithms Algorithms Algorithms Algorithms Algorithms Algorithms Algorithms Algorithms Algorithms Algorithms Algorithms Algorithms

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2024) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-10-12T06:17:10.165071+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-10-12T06:15:06.915819+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-14T19:30:52.867331+00:00
License: public-domain-us · commercial use OK · attribution required
Courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine