On the use and computation of likelihood ratios in clinical chemistry.
- 1 May 1982
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Clinical Chemistry
- Vol. 28 (5) , 1113-1119
- https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/28.5.1113
Abstract
The clinical relevance of likelihood ratios (L-values) for revising the physician's diagnostic probabilities has been recognized. However, the calculation of L-values, particularly in the case of quantitative or mixed quantitative-binary test results, raises problems that have not yet been addressed. Based on a very general assumption that yields a simple functional form for the likelihood ratio, a method is developed that allows such calculations regardless of the nature and the number of clinical laboratory tests to be interpreted simultaneously. Hence the notion of predictive value (posterior probability) is extended from binary or dichotomized tests to quantitative tests, and from univariate to multivariate clinical laboratory results. The simplicity and flexibility of this approach eliminates difficulties in computation arising from the addition of new data to an existing data base. It is hoped that this method will now allow L-values to be reported along with the original test results in daily laboratory practice.This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- The cerebrospinal fluid immunoglobulin G index as a diagnostic aid in multiple sclerosis: a Bayesian approach.Clinical Chemistry, 1982
- Stepwise probit discrimination with specific application to short-term prognosis in acute myocardial infarctionComputers and Biomedical Research, 1981
- Problems of Spectrum and Bias in Evaluating the Efficacy of Diagnostic TestsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1978
- Determination of a trivariate reference region for free thyroxine index, free triiodothyronine index, and thyrotropin from results obtained in a health survey of middle-aged women.Clinical Chemistry, 1978
- A General Maximum Likelihood DiscriminantPublished by JSTOR ,1967
- Predictive Value of a Single Diagnostic Test in Unselected PopulationsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1966