Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37982073›Full record

ArticleIEEE transactions on signal processing : a publication of the IEEE Signal Processing Society2021

Heterogeneity Aware Two-Stage Group Testing.

Mohamed A Attia, Wei-Ting Chang, Ravi Tandon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IEEE transactions on signal processing : a publication of the IEEE Signal Processing Society, 2021. 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. 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.

Mohamed A AttiaDepartment of Electrical, Computer EngineeringUniversity of Arizona Tucson AZ 85721 USA.
Wei-Ting ChangDepartment of Electrical, Computer EngineeringUniversity of Arizona Tucson AZ 85721 USA.
Ravi TandonDepartment of Electrical, Computer EngineeringUniversity of Arizona Tucson AZ 85721 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6182-6098

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Group testing refers to the process of testing pooled samples to reduce the total number of tests. Given the current pandemic, and the shortage of test supplies for COVID-19, group testing can play a critical role in time and cost efficient diagnostics. In many scenarios, samples collected from users are also accompanied with auxiliary information (such as demographics, history of exposure, onset of symptoms). Such auxiliary information may differ across patients, and is typically not considered while designing group testing algorithms. In this paper, we abstract such heterogeneity using a model where the population can be categorized into clusters with different prevalence rates. The main result of this work is to show that exploiting knowledge heterogeneity can further improve the efficiency of group testing. Motivated by the practical constraints and diagnostic considerations, we focus on two-stage group testing algorithms, where in the first stage, the goal is to detect as many negative samples by pooling, whereas the second stage involves individual testing to detect any remaining samples. For this class of algorithms, we prove that the gain in efficiency is related to the concavity of the number of tests as a function of the prevalence. We also show how one can choose the optimal pooling parameters for one of the algorithms in this class, namely, doubly constant pooling. We present lower bounds on the average number of tests as a function of the population heterogeneity profile, and also provide numerical results and comparisons.

Indexed as

group testinghypothesis testingPooled testing

Identifiers

PMID37982073
PMCPMC8544931

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.