Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29977101›Full record

ArticleComputational statistics & data analysis2018

Group testing case identification with biomarker information.

Dewei Wang, Christopher S McMahan, Joshua M Tebbs, Christopher R Bilder

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational statistics & data analysis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Nested Group Testing Procedure.Communications in mathematics and statistics · 2022
    Article
  3. Pooled testing efficiency increases with test frequency.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Sample pooling strategies for SARS-CoV-2 detection.Journal of virological methods · 2021
    Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Dewei WangDepartment of Statistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.
Christopher S McMahanDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA.
Joshua M TebbsDepartment of Statistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.
Christopher R BilderDepartment of Statistics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA.
University of South Carolina · USClemson University · USUniversity of Nebraska–Lincoln · US

Funding

Group testing for infectious disease detection: multiplex assays and back-end screeningR01AI121351 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN · PI BILDER, CHRISTOPHER R · 2016 to 2025
$3.3M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI121351
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Screening procedures for infectious diseases, such as HIV, often involve pooling individual specimens together and testing the pools. For diseases with low prevalence, group testing (or pooled testing) can be used to classify individuals as diseased or not while providing considerable cost savings when compared to testing specimens individually. The pooling literature is replete with group testing case identification algorithms including Dorfman testing, higher-stage hierarchical procedures, and array testing. Although these algorithms are usually evaluated on the basis of the expected number of tests and classification accuracy, most evaluations in the literature do not account for the continuous nature of the testing responses and thus invoke potentially restrictive assumptions to characterize an algorithm's performance. Commonly used case identification algorithms in group testing are considered and are evaluated by taking a different approach. Instead of treating testing responses as binary random variables (i.e., diseased/not), evaluations are made by exploiting an assay's underlying continuous biomarker distributions for positive and negative individuals. In doing so, a general framework to describe the operating characteristics of group testing case identification algorithms is provided when these distributions are known. The methodology is illustrated using two HIV testing examples taken from the pooling literature.

Indexed as

ClassificationMeasurement errorPooled testingScreeningSensitivitySpecificity

Identifiers

PMID29977101
PMCPMC6028055
OpenAlexW2792648525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.