ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Aggregating multiple test results to improve medical decision-making.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of a clinical decision-support tool on empirical antibiotic treatment in the emergency department: a retrospective study.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- Practice and challenges of newborn hearing screening: analysis of a five-year database in Italy.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Determining the Optimal Sequence of Multiple Tests.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Correction: Aggregating multiple test results to improve medical decision-making.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Gathering observational data for medical decision-making often involves uncertainties arising from both type I (false positive) and type II (false negative) errors. In this work, we develop a statistical model to study how medical decision-making can be improved by aggregating results from repeated diagnostic and screening tests. Our approach is relevant to not only clinical settings such as medical imaging, but also to public health, as highlighted by the need for rapid, cost-effective testing methods during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Our model enables the development of testing protocols with an arbitrary number of tests, which can be customized to meet requirements for type I and type II errors. This allows us to adjust sensitivity and specificity according to application-specific needs. Additionally, we derive generalized Rogan-Gladen estimates of disease prevalence that account for an arbitrary number of tests with potentially different type I and type II errors. We also provide the corresponding uncertainty quantification.
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.