ArticleBiometrics2020
From mixed effects modeling to spike and slab variable selection: A Bayesian regression model for group testing data.
Article in Biometrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Current Gaps in Survey Design and Analysis for Molecular Xenomonitoring of Vector-Borne Neglected Tropical Diseases: A Systematic Review.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2025Pooled it
- Multi-Level Variable Selection Using a BART-Enhanced Mixed-Effects Framework.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Bayesian Additive Regression Trees for Group Testing Data.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Bayesian group testing regression models for spatial data.Spatial and spatio-temporal epidemiology · 2024Article
- Estimating viral prevalence with data fusion for adaptive two-phase pooled sampling.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
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
Due to reductions in both time and cost, group testing is a popular alternative to individual-level testing for disease screening. These reductions are obtained by testing pooled biospecimens (eg, blood, urine, swabs, etc.) for the presence of an infectious agent. However, these reductions come at the expense of data complexity, making the task of conducting disease surveillance more tenuous when compared to using individual-level data. This is because an individual's disease status may be obscured by a group testing protocol and the effect of imperfect testing. Furthermore, unlike individual-level testing, a given participant could be involved in multiple testing outcomes and/or may never be tested individually. To circumvent these complexities and to incorporate all available information, we propose a Bayesian generalized linear mixed model that accommodates data arising from any group testing protocol, estimates unknown assay accuracy probabilities and accounts for potential heterogeneity in the covariate effects across population subgroups (eg, clinic sites, etc.); this latter feature is of key interest to practitioners tasked with conducting disease surveillance. To achieve model selection, our proposal uses spike and slab priors for both fixed and random effects. The methodology is illustrated through numerical studies and is applied to chlamydia surveillance data collected in Iowa.
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.