ArticleStatistics in medicine2022
Capturing the pool dilution effect in group testing regression: A Bayesian approach.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2022. 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.
- Bayesian Additive Regression Trees for Group Testing Data.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Bayesian group testing regression models for spatial data.Spatial and spatio-temporal epidemiology · 2024Article
- Capturing the pool dilution effect in group testing regression: A Bayesian approach.Statistics in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Group (pooled) testing is becoming a popular strategy for screening large populations for infectious diseases. This popularity is owed to the cost savings that can be realized through implementing group testing methods. These methods involve physically combining biomaterial (eg, saliva, blood, urine) collected on individuals into pooled specimens which are tested for an infection of interest. Through testing these pooled specimens, group testing methods reduce the cost of diagnosing all individuals under study by reducing the number of tests performed. Even though group testing offers substantial cost reductions, some practitioners are hesitant to adopt group testing methods due to the so-called dilution effect. The dilution effect describes the phenomenon in which biomaterial from negative individuals dilute the contributions from positive individuals to such a degree that a pool is incorrectly classified. Ignoring the dilution effect can reduce classification accuracy and lead to bias in parameter estimates and inaccurate inference. To circumvent these issues, we propose a Bayesian regression methodology which directly acknowledges the dilution effect while accommodating data that arises from any group testing protocol. As a part of our estimation strategy, we are able to identify pool specific optimal classification thresholds which are aimed at maximizing the classification accuracy of the group testing protocol being implemented. These two features working in concert effectively alleviate the primary concerns raised by practitioners regarding group testing. The performance of our methodology is illustrated via an extensive simulation study and by being applied to Hepatitis B data collected on Irish prisoners.
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.