Confidence Interval Estimation for Sensitivity at a Fixed Level of Specificity for Combined Biomarkers

Empirical likelihood confidence interval for sensitivity to the early disease stage

Disease status can naturally be classified into three or more ordinal stages rather than just being binary stages. Many works have been done for the estimation and inference procedure regarding three ordinal disease stages, which are non-disease, early disease, and full disease stages. The early disease stage can be very important for therapeutic intervention and prevention potentiality. As a diagnostic measure, sensitivity to the early disease stage is often used. In this article, we propose confidence intervals for the sensitivity to early disease stage based on given target specificity for non-disease stage and target sensitivity to full disease stage using both empirical likelihood (EL) and adjusted EL procedures. We compare the performance of the proposed EL confidence intervals with other procedures in our simulation study. The proposed procedures are further applied to Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative data set.

Issues and solutions in biomarker evaluation when subclasses are involved under binary classification

In practice, it is common to evaluate biomarkers in binary classification settings (e.g. non-cancer vs. cancer) where one or both main classes involve multiple subclasses. For example, non-cancer class might consist of healthy subjects and benign cases, while cancer class might consist of subjects at early and late stages. The standard practice is pooling within each main class, i.e. all non-cancer subclasses are pooled together to create a control group, and all cancer subclasses are pooled together to create a case group. Based on the pooled data, the area under ROC curve (AUC) and other characteristics are estimated under binary classification for the purpose of biomarker evaluation. Despite the popularity of this pooling strategy in practice, its validity and implication in biomarker evaluation have never been carefully inspected. This paper aims to demonstrate that pooling strategy can be seriously misleading in biomarker evaluation. Furthermore, we present a new diagnostic framework as well as new accuracy measures appropriate for biomaker evaluation under such settings. In the end, an ovarian cancer data set is analyzed.