# PMean: What does large mean when talking about negative values?

Dear Professor Mean, I saw a paper where the authors said that they wanted a diagnostic test with a large negative likelihood ratio, because it was important to rule out a condition. False negatives mean leaving a high risk condition untreated. But don’t they mean that they want a diagnostic test with a small likelihood ratio?

Okay, I agree with you, but it’s an understandable mistake. Let’s quickly review the idea of likelihood ratios. A positive likelihood ratio is defined at Sn / (1-Sp) where Sn is the sensitivity of the diagnostic test and Sp is the specificity. For a diagnostic test with a very high specificity, you get a very large ratio, because you are putting a really small value in the denominator. For Sp=0.99, for example, you would end up getting a positive likelihood ratio of 50 or more (assuming that Sn is at least 0.5).

The positive likelihood ratio is a measure of how much the odds of disease are increased if the diagnostic test is positive.

A negative likelihood ratio is defined as as (1-Sn) / Sp. For a diagnostic test with a very large sensitivity, the negative likelihood ratio is very close to zero. For Sn=0.99, the likelihood ratio is going to be 0.02 or smaller, assuming that Sp is at least 0.5.

The negative likelihood ratio is a measure of how much the odds of disease are decreased if the diagnostic test is negative.

The two likelihood ratios should remind you of the acronyms SpIn and SnOut. SpIn means that if specificity is large, then a positive diagnostic test is good at ruling in the disease. This isn’t always the case, sadly, and for many diagnostic tests, the next step after a positive test is not to treat the disease, but to double check things using a more expensive or more invasive test.

SnNout means that if the sensitivity is large, then a negative diagnostic test is good at ruling out the disease. You can safely send the patient home in some settings, or start looking for other diseases in different settings.

That sounds great, but sometimes you are very concerned about false negatives, and you don’t want to send someone home if they actually have the disease. If you are worried about a cervical fracture, ruling out the fracture and sending someone home might lead to paralysis or death if you have a false negative. So you want to be very sure of yourself in this setting.

Now with regard to the comment above, I think it is just a case of careless language. When the authors say “large negative likelihood ratio”, they should have said “extreme negative likelihood ratio” meaning a likelihood ratio much much smaller than one. I’ve done it myself when I talk about a correlation of -0.8 as being a “big” correlation because it is very far away from zero.

We tend to shy away from words like “small” when we talk about a negative likelihood ratio being much less than 1, because “small” in some people’s minds means “inconsequential” when the opposite is true. When I am careful in my language, I try to use the word “extreme” to mean very far away from the null value (1 for a likelihood ratio or 0 for a correlation) rather than “large” or “small”.

# PMean: Syllabus for Introduction to SPSS, Fall semester 2017

I am teaching a class, Introduction to SPSS (MEDB 5506). Here is the syllabus for Fall Semester 2017. Continue reading

# PMean: Open source as a budgetary measure

Like a lot of public universities, UMKC is having a lot of financial difficulty. They are asking for advice from faculty members on how to address this budget shortfall. Not being the bashful type, I suggested that we stop paying commercial software vendors and commercial journal publishers and rely instead on open source. Here’s the details of my letter. Continue reading

# PMean: A quick summary of my research

I might be giving a very brief (5 minute) overview of my research for students in the Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics. Here are some details of that work, with links if anyone wants to dig deeper. Continue reading

# PMean: What are the important packages for R

I got a question from one of the students in my “Introduction to R” class asking what are the important packages for R. That’s a hard question to answer, but if I got only easy questions, they wouldn’t be paying me the big bucks. Here’s what I think. Continue reading

# PMean: It only looks like a blank

I was having trouble with trailing blanks in an R program. There were some strings that looked like ” Y” and “Y ” and it’s easy enough to fix this, but one of the “Y ” values was not converting properly. The second character wasn’t a blank, but it looked like it. Here’s what I had to do. Continue reading

# PMean: A p-value of .000

Dear Professor Mean, I ran a statistical test in SPSS and got a p-value of .000. I re-ran the same data in Microsoft Excel and got a p-value of 3.9433E-9. I know from scientific notation that this is the same as 0.0000000039433. Why are these numbers different? Continue reading

# PMean: Extremely imbalanced multi-center trials

There was some recent discussion of issues with multi-center trials where one center dominates, contributing as much as 94% of all the patients. What does this do to the generalizability of the study. I wanted to summarize these comments here, because it relates to some of the issues I’m looking at right now in accrual models for multi-center trials. Continue reading