Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42806697›Full record

ArticleBiometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift2026

Confidence Intervals for a Proportion Estimated From Pooled Samples Based on Firth's Corrected Score.

Brad J Biggerstaff, Graham Hepworth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Brad J BiggerstaffDivision of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3105-3530
Graham HepworthSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interval estimation of a proportion estimated from testing of pooled samples has been studied by a variety of researchers, who have examined both exact and asymptotic methods. Recent work in point estimation has seen the use of Firth's correction to maximum likelihood estimation to reduce bias effectively. We consider the Firth-corrected score statistic, using either expected or observed information, as the first derivative function of a penalized likelihood and develop score-based confidence intervals wholly within this framework. We evaluate their performance, comparing them by information type and to the existing, recommended asymptotic method of Gart. The methods are illustrated using data on West Nile virus infection in field-collected mosquitoes and on yellow fever virus infection in mosquitoes reported in Walter et al. The penalized likelihood approach using expected information is found to unify previously recommended point and interval estimates under one inferential framework. Detailed evaluation of coverage properties of the intervals over a range of pooling designs show improved performance for the intervals using observed information and skewness-correction to the score. We derive simple, interpretable expressions for the score and skewness-corrected score statistics, and give a quadratic formula for the skewness-corrected score interval for the case that all pools are the same size, which reduces to a skewness-correction for the standard Wilson interval in the standard binomial case.

Indexed as

BiometryAnimalsConfidence IntervalsCulicidaeLikelihood FunctionsPooled TestingWest Nile virusbinomial proportionexpected informationgroup testingobserved informationpenalized likelihoodpooled testingskewness correction

Identifiers

PMID42806697
PMCPMC13620447

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.