2 ^ 1>3 -> 1 the best1<2 ^ 1>3 -> 2 the best
2 ^ 1<3 -> 3 the best
Hi:
How do we conduct statistical tests to find the best screening method among a set of methods?
For example, we have 3 new methods of screening. We tested them in the same group of patients and verified the screening result of each method against a clinical standard method. Will we be sure to find the best method in the following way?
2 ^ 1>3 -> 1 the best1<2 ^ 1>3 -> 2 the best
2 ^ 1<3 -> 3 the best
1<2 ^ 1<3 ^ 2>3 -> 2 the best
2<3 -> 3 the best
Are there other easier/faster ways to find the best method?
Cosine ??? 2021???6???29??? ???????????????7:47:40 [UTC+8] ??????????????????
How do we conduct statistical tests to find the best screening methodEven we have 1>2 w/ 95% and 1>3 w/ 95%, could we be sure that 1 is the best with 95%? Why?
among a set of methods?
For example, we have 3 new methods of screening. We tested them in
Cosine <asecant@gmail.com> wrote:
Cosine ??? 2021???6???29??? ???????????????7:47:40 [UTC+8] ??????????????????
How do we conduct statistical tests to find the best screening methodEven we have 1>2 w/ 95% and 1>3 w/ 95%, could we be sure that 1 is the best with 95%? Why?
among a set of methods?
For example, we have 3 new methods of screening. We tested them in
"Best" depends on the setting - Sens may be more important than Spec for
a screen, so need to test screen and follow-ups simultaneously versus >cost-benefit. Can give likelihood to each ordering, so can say 1-2-3 is 5x >more likely than 2-1-3.
On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 02:46:44 +0000 (UTC), David Duffy
...
Ranking of results can raise the question of whether 1>2
and 2>3 always implies 1>3; but you might have skipped that
complication.
2 w/ 95% and 2>3 w/ 90%?
Rich Ulrich ? 2021?7?2? ?????2:18:29 [UTC+8] ??????
On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 02:46:44 +0000 (UTC), David Duffy
...
Ranking of results can raise the question of whether 1>2
and 2>3 always implies 1>3; but you might have skipped that
complication.
Well, that is also an issue.
We actually tested by samples to get the result showing that 1>2 w/ 95% confidence.
The same for 2>3 w/ 95%.
But we did NOT do any test to get an actual result showing that 1>3 w/ some confidence.
Does it mean that we still require to test if 1>3 and to get the statistical confidence?
Or there are some ways to show that 1>3 w/ some confidence based on the results of
2 w/ 95% and 2>3 w/ 90%?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 113 |
Nodes: | 8 (1 / 7) |
Uptime: | 128:03:32 |
Calls: | 2,501 |
Files: | 8,692 |
Messages: | 1,924,816 |