Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2603.10686

Investigations of Heterogeneity in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-Analysis: A Methodological Review

Lukas Mischinger·Angela Ernst·Bernhard Haller·Alexey Formenko·Zekeriya Aktuerk·Alexander Hapfelmeier
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Background: Subgroup analyses and meta-regression are commonly used to investigate heterogeneity in diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) meta-analyses (MA), but adherence to methodological guidance is unclear. This methodological review summarizes investigations of heterogeneity (IoH) in DTA-MAs, examining their frequency, characteristics, and alignment with recommendations. Methods: We included DTA-MAs published in 2024 reporting at least one pair of summary sensitivity and specificity. Non-DTA reviews, narrative syntheses, studies reporting only alternative measures, and overviews of systematic reviews were excluded. MEDLINE (via Ovid) was searched for English-language publications, with the final search in January 2025. Results: From 403 records, the most recent 100 DTA-MAs were included, each contributing one index test. IoH were reported in 61 analyses. The number of primary studies was positively associated with conducting an investigation (OR 1.66; p = 0.008). Subgroup analyses were used in 35/61 (57%), while 26/61 (43%) applied meta-regression alone or with subgroup analyses. Subgroup analyses examined fewer variables than meta-regression (p < 0.001). Among 44/61 (72%) analyses with sufficient detail to identify a statistical model, the bivariate model was used in 28/44 (64%), univariate random-effects models in 14/44 (32%), and the HSROC model in 5/44 (11%). Formal tests for subgroup differences were reported in 37/61 (61%). Protocols were available for 43/61 (70%) analyses, of which 19/43 (44%) fully prespecified IoH. Discussion: IoH were common and more likely when more primary studies were available, although individual subgroups were often supported by limited data. Reporting of statistical models and model choice was frequently unclear. Greater prespecification of IoH in protocols may reduce spurious findings and improve transparency in diagnostic research.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Lukas Mischinger, Angela Ernst, Bernhard Haller, Alexey Formenko, Zekeriya Aktuerk, Alexander Hapfelmeier. 2026-03-11. Investigations of Heterogeneity in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-Analysis: A Methodological Review. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.10686

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗