ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2020
Array testing for multiplex assays.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bayesian Additive Regression Trees for Group Testing Data.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- binGroup2: Statistical Tools for Infection Identification via Group Testing.The R journal · 2023Article
- Estimating the prevalence of two or more diseases using outcomes from multiplex group testing.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2023Article
- Simulation of group testing scenarios can boost COVID-19 screening power.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Application of dried blood spot sample pooling strategies for Plasmodium 18S rRNA biomarker testing to facilitate identification of infected persons in large-scale epidemiological studies.Malaria journal · 2021Article
- Pooled Testing Strategies for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis: A comprehensive review.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Group testing involves pooling individual specimens (e.g., blood, urine, swabs, etc.) and testing the pools for the presence of disease. When the proportion of diseased individuals is small, group testing can greatly reduce the number of tests needed to screen a population. Statistical research in group testing has traditionally focused on applications for a single disease. However, blood service organizations and large-scale disease surveillance programs are increasingly moving towards the use of multiplex assays, which measure multiple disease biomarkers at once. Tebbs and others (2013, Two-stage hierarchical group testing for multiple infections with application to the Infertility Prevention Project. Biometrics69, 1064-1073) and Hou and others (2017, Hierarchical group testing for multiple infections. Biometrics73, 656-665) were the first to examine hierarchical group testing case identification procedures for multiple diseases. In this article, we propose new non-hierarchical procedures which utilize two-dimensional arrays. We derive closed-form expressions for the expected number of tests per individual and classification accuracy probabilities and show that array testing can be more efficient than hierarchical procedures when screening individuals for multiple diseases at once. We illustrate the potential of using array testing in the detection of chlamydia and gonorrhea for a statewide screening program in Iowa. Finally, we describe an R/Shiny application that will help practitioners identify the best multiple-disease case identification algorithm.
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.