ArticleBiometrika2016
Misclassified group-tested current status data.
Article in Biometrika, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regression analysis of group-tested current status data.Biometrika · 2024Article
- Nonparametric estimation of distributions and diagnostic accuracy based on group-tested results with differential misclassification.Biometrics · 2020Article
- Incorporating retesting outcomes for estimation of disease prevalence.Statistics in medicine · 2020Article
- Natural history of diseases: Statistical designs and issues.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Group testing, introduced by Dorfman (1943), has been used to reduce costs when estimating the prevalence of a binary characteristic based on a screening test of [Formula: see text] groups that include [Formula: see text] independent individuals in total. If the unknown prevalence is low and the screening test suffers from misclassification, it is also possible to obtain more precise prevalence estimates than those obtained from testing all [Formula: see text] samples separately (Tu et al., 1994). In some applications, the individual binary response corresponds to whether an underlying time-to-event variable [Formula: see text] is less than an observed screening time [Formula: see text], a data structure known as current status data. Given sufficient variation in the observed [Formula: see text] values, it is possible to estimate the distribution function [Formula: see text] of [Formula: see text] nonparametrically, at least at some points in its support, using the pool-adjacent-violators algorithm (Ayer et al., 1955). Here, we consider nonparametric estimation of [Formula: see text] based on group-tested current status data for groups of size [Formula: see text] where the group tests positive if and only if any individual's unobserved [Formula: see text] is less than the corresponding observed [Formula: see text]. We investigate the performance of the group-based estimator as compared to the individual test nonparametric maximum likelihood estimator, and show that the former can be more precise in the presence of misclassification for low values of [Formula: see text]. Potential applications include testing for the presence of various diseases in pooled samples where interest focuses on the age-at-incidence distribution rather than overall prevalence. We apply this estimator to the age-at-incidence curve for hepatitis C infection in a sample of U.S. women who gave birth to a child in 2014, where group assignment is done at random and based on maternal age. We discuss connections to other work in the literature, as well as potential extensions.
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.