Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37360771›Full record

ArticleEconomic theory2023

Optimal group testing with heterogeneous risks.

Nina Bobkova, Ying Chen, Hülya Eraslan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Economic theory, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Testing alone is insufficient.Review of economic design · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nina BobkovaDepartment of Economics, Rice University and CEPR, Houston, USA.
Ying ChenDepartment of Economics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA.
Hülya EraslanDepartment of Economics, Rice University and NBER, Houston, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We consider optimal group testing of individuals with heterogeneous risks for an infectious disease. Our algorithm significantly reduces the number of tests needed compared to Dorfman (Ann Math Stat 14(4):436-440, 1943). When both low-risk and high-risk samples have sufficiently low infection probabilities, it is optimal to form heterogeneous groups with exactly one high-risk sample per group. Otherwise, it is not optimal to form heterogeneous groups, but homogeneous group testing may still be optimal. For a range of parameters including the U.S. Covid-19 positivity rate for many weeks during the pandemic, the optimal size of a group test is four. We discuss the implications of our results for team design and task assignment.

Indexed as

Group testingHeterogeneous risksNegative assortative matchingPooled testingPositive assortative matching

Identifiers

PMID37360771
PMCPMC10243685

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.