ArticleStatistics in medicine2018
Logistic regression with a continuous exposure measured in pools and subject to errors.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2018. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improvement of SARS-COV-2 screening using pooled sampling testing in limited RT-qPCR resources.Journal of virological methods · 2022Article
- Gamma models for estimating the odds ratio for a skewed biomarker measured in pools and subject to errors.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
- Adjustment for Urinary Creatinine or Serum Lipids for Analytes Assayed in Pooled Specimens.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In a multivariable logistic regression setting where measuring a continuous exposure requires an expensive assay, a design in which the biomarker is measured in pooled samples from multiple subjects can be very cost effective. A logistic regression model for poolwise data is available, but validity requires that the assay yields the precise mean exposure for members of each pool. To account for errors, we assume the assay returns the true mean exposure plus a measurement error (ME) and/or a processing error (PE). We pursue likelihood-based inference for a binary health-related outcome modeled by logistic regression coupled with a normal linear model relating individual-level exposure to covariates and assuming that the ME and PE components are independent and normally distributed regardless of pool size. We compare this approach with a discriminant function-based alternative, and we demonstrate the potential value of incorporating replicates into the study design. Applied to a reproductive health dataset with pools of size 2 along with individual samples and replicates, the model fit with both ME and PE had a lower AIC than a model accounting for ME only. Relative to ignoring errors, this model suggested a somewhat higher (though still nonsignificant) adjusted log-odds ratio associating the cytokine MCP-1 with risk of spontaneous abortion. Simulations modeled after these data confirm validity of the methods, demonstrate how ME and particularly PE can reduce the efficiency advantage of a pooling design, and highlight the value of replicates in improving stability when both errors are present.
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.