.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
Analytical method for detecting outlier evaluators
.png){kind=icon}
OA
AI
DOI：10.1186/s12874-023-01988-4.png)
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
BackgroundEpidemiologic and medical studies often rely on evaluators to obtain measurements of exposures or outcomes for study participants, and valid estimates of associations depends on the quality of data. Even though statistical methods have been proposed to adjust for measurement errors, they often rely on unverifiable assumptions and could lead to biased estimates if those assumptions are violated. Therefore, methods for detecting potential 'outlier' evaluators are needed to improve data quality during data collection stage.MethodsIn this paper, we propose a two-stage algorithm to detect 'outlier' evaluators whose evaluation results tend to be higher or lower than their counterparts. In the first stage, evaluators' effects are obtained by fitting a regression model. In the second stage, hypothesis tests are performed to detect 'outlier' evaluators, where we consider both the power of each hypothesis test and the false discovery rate (FDR) among all tests. We conduct an extensive simulation study to evaluate the proposed method, and illustrate the method by detecting potential 'outlier' audiologists in the data collection stage for the Audiology Assessment Arm of the Conservation of Hearing Study, an epidemiologic study for examining risk factors of hearing loss in the Nurses' Health Study II.ResultsOur simulation study shows that our method not only can detect true 'outlier' evaluators, but also is less likely to falsely reject true 'normal' evaluators.ConclusionsOur two-stage 'outlier' detection algorithm is a flexible approach that can effectively detect 'outlier' evaluators, and thus data quality can be improved during data collection stage.
Keywords:
Evaluator
False discovery rate
Outlier detection
Quality control
Reviewer
AI Summary
Key information extracted from the uploaded paper, including a brief overview, abstract, background, key highlights, visual analysis, and future outlook.
Journal
IF:
3.4
Papers:
3.9K
Citations:
2.8W