= Solution
Let $\epsilon$ be the <false positive rate> for a genuinely cancer-free person, encompassing the harmless-tumour misclassification, and assume screening errors are conditionally independent given the latent states. A pre-clinical case tests positive with probability one; a clinical case is separately recognized. Thus a negative screen identifies latent state $1$, whereas a positive pre-clinical screen can arise from state $1$ or $2$. This is a <Hidden Markov model> with a <screening misclassification model>.
Conditional on the negative baseline screen, the state at year $0$ is $1$. The negative screen at year $2$ requires staying in state $1$ for two years and then testing negative. From that state, the positive screen at year $4$ can arise either with probability $\epsilon$ while still disease-free or through pre-clinical disease. Consequently \b[the conditional likelihood] is
$$
\boxed{L_{\mathrm{cond}}=e^{-2\lambda}(1-\epsilon)\left[\epsilon e^{-2\lambda}+\frac{\lambda}{\nu-\lambda}(e^{-2\lambda}-e^{-2\nu})\right].}
$$
If the study instead specifies an initially disease-free patient and includes the baseline screening result in the <likelihood function>, its probability contributes a further factor $1-\epsilon$, giving
$$
\boxed{L_{\mathrm{all}}=(1-\epsilon)^2e^{-2\lambda}\left[\epsilon e^{-2\lambda}+\frac{\lambda}{\nu-\lambda}(e^{-2\lambda}-e^{-2\nu})\right].}
$$
The formulas use the positive emission for a pre-clinical screen, with no clinical diagnosis in this record. A persistent harmless-tumour subtype producing correlated screening errors would need an additional latent-state or emission specification; its likelihood is not determined by the single parameter $\epsilon$.
Back to article page
