Abstract
Computable or electronic phenotypes of patient conditions are becoming more commonplace in quality improvement and clinical research. During phenotyping algorithm validation, standard classification performance measures (i.e., sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy) are commonly employed. When validation is performed on a randomly sampled patient population, direct estimates of these measures are valid. However, it is common that studies will sample patients conditional on the algorithm result, leading to a form of bias known as verification bias. The presence of verification bias requires adjustment of performance measure estimates to account for this sampling bias. Herein, we describe the appropriate formulae for valid estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy to account for verification bias. We additionally present an online tool to adjust algorithm performance measures for verification bias by directly taking the sampling strategy into consideration and recommend use of this tool to properly estimate algorithm performance for phenotyping validation studies.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: To the best of our knowledge, no conflict of interest, financial or other, exists with respect to the information provided in this report.
Funding/Support: None.
Data Availability
There is no data associated with this study. There is an online web tool that we have created that is free to use by anyone reviewing the paper.
