ArticleJournal of agricultural, biological, and environmental statistics2021
Bias Correction in Estimating Proportions by Imperfect Pooled Testing.
Article in Journal of agricultural, biological, and environmental statistics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Confidence Intervals for a Proportion Estimated From Pooled Samples Based on Firth's Corrected Score.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2026Article
- Dengue, chikungunya and Zika virus surveillance in blood donors in Brazil, 2019-2021.Vox sanguinis · 2026Article
- Assessing Simultaneous Infection with Multiple Pathogens via Group Testing with Imperfect Multiplex Assays.Journal of agricultural, biological, and environmental statistics · 2025Article
- Wolbachia wMel strain-mediated effects on dengue virus vertical transmission from Aedes aegypti to their offspring.Parasites & vectors · 2023Article
- Discussion of "Is group testing ready for prime-time in disease Identification?" by Haber, Malinovsky, and Albert, Statistics in Medicine, 2021.Statistics in medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the estimation of proportions by pooled testing, the MLE is biased. Hepworth and Biggerstaff (JABES, 22:602-614, 2017) proposed an estimator based on the bias correction method of Firth (Biometrika 80:27-38, 1993) and showed that it is almost unbiased across a range of pooled testing problems involving no misclassification. We now extend their work to allow for imperfect testing. We derive the estimator, provide a Newton-Raphson iterative formula for its computation and test it in situations involving equal or unequal pool sizes, drawing on problems encountered in plant disease assessment and prevalence estimation of mosquito-borne viruses. Our estimator is highly effective at reducing the bias for prevalences consistent with the pooled testing procedure employed.
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.