CIfinder is an R package intended to provide functions to compute confidence intervals for the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) based on varied scenarios. In prospective studies where the proportion of diseased subjects provides an unbiased estimate of the disease prevalence, the confidence intervals for PPV and NPV can be estimated by methods that are applicable to single proportions. In this case, the package provides six methods for cocmputing the confidence intervals: “clopper.pearson”, “wald”, “wilson”, “wilson.correct”, “agresti”, and “beta”. In situations where the proportion of diseased subjects does not correspond to the disease prevalence (e.g. case-control studies), this package provides two types of solutions: I) three methods to estimate confidence intervals for PPV and NPV via ratio of two binomial proportions, including Gart & Nam (1988) https://doi.org/10.2307/2531848, Walter (1975) https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/62.2.371, and MOVER-J (Laud, 2017) https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.1813; II) three direct methods to compute the confidence intervals, including Pepe (2003) https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2185, Zhou (2007) doi:10.1002/sim.2677, and Delta https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2677. For more information, please see the Details and References sections in the user’s manual.

You can install the latest version of `CIfinder`

by:

To demonstrate the utility of the `CIfinder::ppv_npv_ci()`

function for calculating the confidence intervals for PPV and NPV, we will use a case-control study published by van de Vijver et al. (2002) https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa021967. In the study, Cases were defined as those that have metastasis within 5 years of tumour excision, while controls were those that did not. Each tumor was classified as having a good or poor gene signature which was defined as having a signature correlation coefficient above or below the ‘optimized sensitivity’ threshold, respectively. This ‘optimized sensitivity’ threshold is defined as the correlation value that would result in a misclassification of at most 10 per cent of the cases. The performance of their 70-gene signature as prognosticator for metastasis is summarized as below:

```
#> Case Control
#> Poor_Signature 31 12
#> Good_Signature 3 32
#> Total 34 44
```

Since this was a case-control study, the proportion of cases (34/(34+44)=43.6%) is not an unbiased estimate of its prevalence (assumed 7%). PPV and NPV and their confidence intervals can’t be estimated directly. To calculate the confidence interval based “gart and nam” method:

```
library(CIfinder)
ppv_npv_ci(x1 = 31, n1 = 34, x0 = 32, n0 = 44, prevalence = 0.07,
method = "gart and nam")
#> $method
#> [1] "gart and nam"
#>
#> $sensitivity
#> [1] 0.9117647
#>
#> $specificity
#> [1] 0.7272727
#>
#> $phi_ppv
#> phi_ppv_est phi_ppv_l phi_ppv_u phi_ppv_mle
#> 0.2991202 0.1715910 0.4656310 0.3009710
#>
#> $ppv
#> ppv_est ppv_l ppv_u ppv_mle
#> 0.2010444 0.1391548 0.3049051 0.2000554
#>
#> $phi_npv
#> phi_npv_est phi_npv_l phi_npv_u phi_npv_mle
#> 0.1213235 0.0323270 0.3090900 0.1266740
#>
#> $npv
#> npv_est npv_l npv_u npv_mle
#> 0.9909508 0.9772641 0.9975727 0.9905554
```

To calculate the confidence interval based “zhou’s method”

```
ppv_npv_ci(x1 = 31, n1 = 34, x0 = 32, n0 = 44, prevalence = 0.07,
method = "zhou")
#> $method
#> [1] "zhou"
#>
#> $sensitivity
#> [1] 0.9117647
#>
#> $specificity
#> [1] 0.7272727
#>
#> $ppv
#> ppv_est ppv_l ppv_u
#> 0.2010444 0.1217419 0.2803468
#>
#> $npv
#> npv_est npv_l npv_u
#> 0.9909508 0.9811265 1.0007750
#>
#> $ppv_logit_transformed
#> ppv_est ppv_l ppv_u
#> 0.2010444 0.1331384 0.2919216
#>
#> $npv_logit_transformed
#> npv_est npv_l npv_u
#> 0.9909508 0.9734141 0.9969560
```

In this output, since continuity correction isn’t specified, the estimates and confidence intervals in `ppv`

and `npv`

are same as the standard delta method where the `ppv_logit_transformed`

and `npv_logit_transformed`

refer the standard logit method described in the paper. If `continuity.correction`

is being specified:

```
ppv_npv_ci(x1 = 31, n1 = 34, x0 = 32, n0 = 44, prevalence = 0.07,
method = "zhou",
continuity.correction = TRUE)
#> $method
#> [1] "zhou"
#>
#> $sensitivity
#> [1] 0.8699646
#>
#> $specificity
#> [1] 0.7090237
#>
#> $ppv
#> ppv_est ppv_l ppv_u
#> 0.1836999 0.1148465 0.2525533
#>
#> $npv
#> npv_est npv_l npv_u
#> 0.9863836 0.9750497 0.9977175
#>
#> $ppv_logit_transformed
#> ppv_est ppv_l ppv_u
#> 0.1836999 0.1244835 0.2626354
#>
#> $npv_logit_transformed
#> npv_est npv_l npv_u
#> 0.9863836 0.9688986 0.9940985
```

In this case, a continuity correction value `ppv`

and `npv`

outputs refer the “Adjusted” in the paper and `ppv_logit_transformed`

and `npv_logit_transformed`

denote the “Adjusted logit” method described in the paper.

Assume we have a special case data where

```
#> Case Control
#> Poor_Signature 31 0
#> Good_Signature 3 44
#> Total 34 44
```

In this situation, `Pepe`

, `Delta`

, and `Zhou`

(standard logit) methods can not be used without continuity correction. `Walter`

method can be used, but there may have skewness concerns. `gart and nam`

and `mover-j`

could be considered.

```
ppv_npv_ci(x1 = 31, n1 = 34, x0 = 44, n0 = 44, prevalence = 0.07,
method = "gart and nam")
#> $method
#> [1] "gart and nam"
#>
#> $sensitivity
#> [1] 0.9117647
#>
#> $specificity
#> [1] 1
#>
#> $phi_ppv
#> phi_ppv_est phi_ppv_l phi_ppv_u phi_ppv_mle
#> 0.000000 0.000000 0.067785 0.004121
#>
#> $ppv
#> ppv_est ppv_l ppv_u ppv_mle
#> 1.0000000 0.5261573 1.0000000 0.9480916
#>
#> $phi_npv
#> phi_npv_est phi_npv_l phi_npv_u phi_npv_mle
#> 0.08823529 0.02376800 0.21956500 0.09223300
#>
#> $npv
#> npv_est npv_l npv_u npv_mle
#> 0.9934025 0.9837423 0.9982142 0.9931056
```

Comparing to the `Walter`

output:

```
ppv_npv_ci(x1 = 31, n1 = 34, x0 = 44, n0 = 44, prevalence = 0.07,
method = "walter")
#> $method
#> [1] "walter"
#>
#> $sensitivity
#> [1] 0.9117647
#>
#> $specificity
#> [1] 1
#>
#> $phi_ppv
#> phi lower upper
#> 0.0000000000 0.0007803411 0.1940673904
#>
#> $ppv
#> ppv_est ppv_l ppv_u
#> 1.0000000 0.2794604 0.9897390
#>
#> $phi_npv
#> phi lower upper
#> 0.08823529 0.03758016 0.27386671
#>
#> $npv
#> npv_est npv_l npv_u
#> 0.9934025 0.9798027 0.9971794
```

Note, for `walter`

, no continuity.correction should be used as 0.5 has been used as described by the original paper.

Also comparing to the Zhou’s adjusted methods:

```
ppv_npv_ci(x1 = 31, n1 = 34, x0 = 44, n0 = 44, prevalence = 0.07,
method = "zhou",
continuity.correction = TRUE)
#> $method
#> [1] "zhou"
#>
#> $sensitivity
#> [1] 0.8699646
#>
#> $specificity
#> [1] 0.9598522
#>
#> $ppv
#> ppv_est ppv_l ppv_u
#> 0.6199169 0.2921698 0.9476640
#>
#> $npv
#> npv_est npv_l npv_u
#> 0.9899059 0.9816510 0.9981609
#>
#> $ppv_logit_transformed
#> ppv_est ppv_l ppv_u
#> 0.6199169 0.2886800 0.8676335
#>
#> $npv_logit_transformed
#> npv_est npv_l npv_u
#> 0.9899059 0.9772354 0.9955563
```

We appreciate any feedback, comments and suggestions. If you have any questions or issues to use the package, please reach out to the developers.