Researcher profile

Satoshi Hattori

Satoshi Hattori contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A likelihood based sensitivity analysis for publication bias on summary ROC in meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy

In meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy, summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) is a recommended method to summarize the discriminant capacity of a diagnostic test in the presence of study-specific cutoff values and the area under the SROC (SAUC) gives the aggregate measure of test accuracy. SROC or SAUC can be estimated by bivariate modelling of pairs of sensitivity and specificity over the primary diagnostic studies. However, publication bias is a major threat to the validity of estimates in meta-analysis. To address this issue, we propose to adopt sensitivity analysis to make an objective inference for the impact of publication bias on SROC or SAUC. We extend Copas likelihood based sensitivity analysis to the bivariate normal model used for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy to evaluate how much SROC or SAUC would change with different selection probabilities under several selective publication mechanisms dependent on sensitivity and/or specificity. The selection probability is modelled by a selection function on $t$-type statistic for the linear combination of logit-transformed sensitivity and specificity, allowing the selective publication of each study to be influenced by the cutoff-dependent $p$-value for sensitivity, specificity, or diagnostic odds ratio. By embedding the selection function into the bivariate normal model, the conditional likelihood is proposed and the bias-corrected SROC or SAUC can be estimated by maximizing the likelihood. We illustrate the proposed sensitivity analysis by reanalyzing a meta-analysis of test accuracy for intravascular device related infection. Simulation studies are conducted to investigate the performance of proposed methods.

preprint2020arXiv

Using clinical trial registries to inform Copas selection model for publication bias in meta-analysis

Prospective registration of study protocols in clinical trial registries is a useful way to minimize the risk of publication bias in meta-analysis, and several clinical trial registries are available nowadays. However, they are mainly used as a tool for searching studies and information submitted to the registries has not been utilized as efficiently as it could. In addressing publication bias in meta-analyses, sensitivity analysis with the Copas selection model is a more objective alternative to widely-used graphical methods such as the funnel-plot and the trim-and-fill method. Despite its ability to quantify the potential impact of publication bias, a drawback of the model is that some parameters not to be specified. This may result in some difficulty in interpreting the results of the sensitivity analysis. In this paper, we propose an alternative inference procedure for the Copas selection model by utilizing information from clinical trial registries. Our method provides a simple and accurate way to estimate all unknown parameters in the Copas selection model. A simulation study revealed that our proposed method resulted in smaller biases and more accurate confidence intervals than existing methods. Furthermore, two published meta-analyses had been re-analysed to demonstrate how to implement the proposed method in practice.