ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2023
Bayesian group testing with dilution effects.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bayesian Ordered Lattice Design for Phase I Clinical Trials.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A Bayesian framework for group testing under dilution effects has been developed, using lattice-based models. This work has particular relevance given the pressing public health need to enhance testing capacity for coronavirus disease 2019 and future pandemics, and the need for wide-scale and repeated testing for surveillance under constantly varying conditions. The proposed Bayesian approach allows for dilution effects in group testing and for general test response distributions beyond just binary outcomes. It is shown that even under strong dilution effects, an intuitive group testing selection rule that relies on the model order structure, referred to as the Bayesian halving algorithm, has attractive optimal convergence properties. Analogous look-ahead rules that can reduce the number of stages in classification by selecting several pooled tests at a time are proposed and evaluated as well. Group testing is demonstrated to provide great savings over individual testing in the number of tests needed, even for moderately high prevalence levels. However, there is a trade-off with higher number of testing stages, and increased variability. A web-based calculator is introduced to assist in weighing these factors and to guide decisions on when and how to pool under various conditions. High-performance distributed computing methods have also been implemented for considering larger pool sizes, when savings from group testing can be even more dramatic.
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.