ArticleStatistics in medicine2014
A highly efficient design strategy for regression with outcome pooling.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Semiparametric isotonic regression modelling and estimation for group testing data.The Canadian journal of statistics = Revue canadienne de statistique · 2021Article
- Logistic regression with a continuous exposure measured in pools and subject to errors.Statistics in medicine · 2018Article
- Estimating relative risk of a log-transformed exposure measured in pools.Statistics in medicine · 2016Article
- An efficient design strategy for logistic regression using outcome- and covariate-dependent pooling of biospecimens prior to assay.Biometrics · 2016Article
- A Discriminant Function Approach to Adjust for Processing and Measurement Error When a Biomarker is Assayed in Pooled Samples.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2015Article
- Positing, fitting, and selecting regression models for pooled biomarker data.Statistics in medicine · 2015Article
- Semiparametric regression models for a right-skewed outcome subject to pooling.American journal of epidemiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The potential for research involving biospecimens can be hindered by the prohibitive cost of performing laboratory assays on individual samples. To mitigate this cost, strategies such as randomly selecting a portion of specimens for analysis or randomly pooling specimens prior to performing laboratory assays may be employed. These techniques, while effective in reducing cost, are often accompanied by a considerable loss of statistical efficiency. We propose a novel pooling strategy based on the k-means clustering algorithm to reduce laboratory costs while maintaining a high level of statistical efficiency when predictor variables are measured on all subjects, but the outcome of interest is assessed in pools. We perform simulations motivated by the BioCycle study to compare this k-means pooling strategy with current pooling and selection techniques under simple and multiple linear regression models. While all of the methods considered produce unbiased estimates and confidence intervals with appropriate coverage, pooling under k-means clustering provides the most precise estimates, closely approximating results from the full data and losing minimal precision as the total number of pools decreases. The benefits of k-means clustering evident in the simulation study are then applied to an analysis of the BioCycle dataset. In conclusion, when the number of lab tests is limited by budget, pooling specimens based on k-means clustering prior to performing lab assays can be an effective way to save money with minimal information loss in a regression setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.