ArticleBiometrics2017
Hierarchical group testing for multiple infections.
Article in Biometrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bayesian Additive Regression Trees for Group Testing Data.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Regression analysis of group-tested current status data.Biometrika · 2024Article
- Estimating the prevalence of two or more diseases using outcomes from multiplex group testing.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2023Article
- Nested Group Testing Procedure.Communications in mathematics and statistics · 2022Article
- Simulation of group testing scenarios can boost COVID-19 screening power.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Sample pooling strategies for SARS-CoV-2 detection.Journal of virological methods · 2021Review
- Nonparametric estimation of distributions and diagnostic accuracy based on group-tested results with differential misclassification.Biometrics · 2020Article
- Array testing for multiplex assays.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- Informative group testing for multiplex assays.Biometrics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Group testing, where individuals are tested initially in pools, is widely used to screen a large number of individuals for rare diseases. Triggered by the recent development of assays that detect multiple infections at once, screening programs now involve testing individuals in pools for multiple infections simultaneously. Tebbs, McMahan, and Bilder (2013, Biometrics) recently evaluated the performance of a two-stage hierarchical algorithm used to screen for chlamydia and gonorrhea as part of the Infertility Prevention Project in the United States. In this article, we generalize this work to accommodate a larger number of stages. To derive the operating characteristics of higher-stage hierarchical algorithms with more than one infection, we view the pool decoding process as a time-inhomogeneous, finite-state Markov chain. Taking this conceptualization enables us to derive closed-form expressions for the expected number of tests and classification accuracy rates in terms of transition probability matrices. When applied to chlamydia and gonorrhea testing data from four states (Region X of the United States Department of Health and Human Services), higher-stage hierarchical algorithms provide, on average, an estimated 11% reduction in the number of tests when compared to two-stage algorithms. For applications with rarer infections, we show theoretically that this percentage reduction can be much larger.
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.