Search

Epidemiologic screening programs often make use of tests with small, but nonzero probabilities of misdiagnosis. In this article, we assume the target population is finite with a fixed number of true cases, and that we apply an imperfect test with known sensitivity and specificity to a sample of individuals from the population. In this setting, we propose an enhanced inferential approach for use in conjunction with sampling-based bias-corrected prevalence estimation. While ignoring the finite nature of the population can yield markedly conservative estimates, direct application of a standard finite population correction (FPC) conversely leads to underestimation of variance. We uncover a way to leverage the typical FPC indirectly toward valid statistical inference. In particular, we derive a readily estimable extra variance component induced by misclassification in this specific but arguably common diagnostic testing scenario. Our approach yields a standard error estimate that properly captures the sampling variability of the usual bias-corrected maximum likelihood estimator of disease prevalence. Finally, we develop an adapted Bayesian credible interval for the true prevalence that offers improved frequentist properties (i.e., coverage and width) relative to a Wald-type confidence interval. We report the simulation results to demonstrate the enhanced performance of the proposed inferential methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Differential privacy is a restriction on data processing algorithms that provides strong confidentiality guarantees for individual records in the data. However, research on proper statistical inference, that is, research on properly quantifying the uncertainty of the (noisy) sample estimate regarding the true value in the population, is currently still limited. This article proposes and evaluates several strategies to compute valid differentially private confidence intervals for the median. Instead of computing a differentially private point estimate and deriving its uncertainty, we directly estimate the interval bounds and discuss why this approach is superior if ensuring privacy is important. We also illustrate that addressing both sources of uncertainty—the error from sampling and the error from protecting the output—simultaneously should be preferred over simpler approaches that incorporate the uncertainty in a sequential fashion. We evaluate the performance of the different algorithms under various parameter settings in extensive simulation studies and demonstrate how the findings could be applied in practical settings using data from the 1940 Decennial Census. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides understanding of the most important information that clinicians need to know about meta-analyses. Topics discussed are dispersion of true effects of size and dispersion secondary to sampling error, equation for the prediction interval and its use in the practice of clinical medicine as well as in choosing among treatments, and distinction of prediction from confidence interval.