ArticleStatistics in medicine2017
Group testing regression models with dilution submodels.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sample pooling approaches simulated under resource scarcity, lapses in testing capacity, and rapid processing demands for surveillance testing: a data-driven performance comparison.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Estimating the prevalence of two or more diseases using outcomes from multiplex group testing.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2023Article
- Capturing the pool dilution effect in group testing regression: A Bayesian approach.Statistics in medicine · 2022Article
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 specimens are tested initially in pools, is widely used to screen individuals for sexually transmitted diseases. However, a common problem encountered in practice is that group testing can increase the number of false negative test results. This occurs primarily when positive individual specimens within a pool are diluted by negative ones, resulting in positive pools testing negatively. If the goal is to estimate a population-level regression model relating individual disease status to observed covariates, severe bias can result if an adjustment for dilution is not made. Recognizing this as a critical issue, recent binary regression approaches in group testing have utilized continuous biomarker information to acknowledge the effect of dilution. In this paper, we have the same overall goal but take a different approach. We augment existing group testing regression models (that assume no dilution) with a parametric dilution submodel for pool-level sensitivity and estimate all parameters using maximum likelihood. An advantage of our approach is that it does not rely on external biomarker test data, which may not be available in surveillance studies. Furthermore, unlike previous approaches, our framework allows one to formally test whether dilution is present based on the observed group testing data. We use simulation to illustrate the performance of our estimation and inference methods, and we apply these methods to 2 infectious disease data sets.
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.