ArticleBiometrics2017
Bayesian regression for group testing data.
Article in Biometrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 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
- Bayesian group testing regression models for spatial data.Spatial and spatio-temporal epidemiology · 2024Article
- Eco-epidemiology of Rickettsia amblyommatis and Rickettsia parkeri in naturally infected ticks (Acari: Ixodida) from South Carolina.Parasites & vectors · 2024Article
- Estimating the prevalence of two or more diseases using outcomes from multiplex group testing.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2023Article
- Generalized additive regression for group testing data.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
- Estimating viral prevalence with data fusion for adaptive two-phase pooled sampling.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- From mixed effects modeling to spike and slab variable selection: A Bayesian regression model for group testing data.Biometrics · 2020Article
- Regression analysis and variable selection for two-stage multiple-infection group testing data.Statistics in medicine · 2019Article
- Adaptive elastic net for group testing.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 involves pooling individual specimens (e.g., blood, urine, swabs, etc.) and testing the pools for the presence of a disease. When individual covariate information is available (e.g., age, gender, number of sexual partners, etc.), a common goal is to relate an individual's true disease status to the covariates in a regression model. Estimating this relationship is a nonstandard problem in group testing because true individual statuses are not observed and all testing responses (on pools and on individuals) are subject to misclassification arising from assay error. Previous regression methods for group testing data can be inefficient because they are restricted to using only initial pool responses and/or they make potentially unrealistic assumptions regarding the assay accuracy probabilities. To overcome these limitations, we propose a general Bayesian regression framework for modeling group testing data. The novelty of our approach is that it can be easily implemented with data from any group testing protocol. Furthermore, our approach will simultaneously estimate assay accuracy probabilities (along with the covariate effects) and can even be applied in screening situations where multiple assays are used. We apply our methods to group testing data collected in Iowa as part of statewide screening efforts for chlamydia, and we make user-friendly R code available to practitioners.
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.