ArticleStatistics in medicine2025
Bayesian Additive Regression Trees for Group Testing Data.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When screening for low-prevalence diseases, pooling specimens (e.g., blood, urine, swabs, etc.) through group testing has the potential to substantially reduce costs when compared to testing specimens individually. A common goal in group testing applications is to estimate the relationship between an individual's true disease status and their individual-level covariate information. However, estimating such a relationship is a non-trivial problem because true individual disease statuses are unknown due to the group testing protocol and the possibility of imperfect testing. While several regression methods have been developed in recent years to accommodate the complexity of group testing data, the functional form of covariate effects is typically assumed to be known. To avoid model misspecification and to provide a more flexible approach, we propose a Bayesian additive regression trees framework to model the individual-level probability of disease with potentially misclassified group testing data. Our methods can be used to analyze data arising from any group testing protocol with the goal of estimating unknown functions of covariates and assay classification accuracy probabilities.
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.