Group testing case identification with biomarker information

Dewei Wang, Christopher S. McMahan, Joshua M. Tebbs, Christopher R Bilder

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Screening procedures for infectious diseases, such as HIV, often involve pooling individual specimens together and testing the pools. For diseases with low prevalence, group testing (or pooled testing) can be used to classify individuals as diseased or not while providing considerable cost savings when compared to testing specimens individually. The pooling literature is replete with group testing case identification algorithms including Dorfman testing, higher-stage hierarchical procedures, and array testing. Although these algorithms are usually evaluated on the basis of the expected number of tests and classification accuracy, most evaluations in the literature do not account for the continuous nature of the testing responses and thus invoke potentially restrictive assumptions to characterize an algorithm's performance. Commonly used case identification algorithms in group testing are considered and are evaluated by taking a different approach. Instead of treating testing responses as binary random variables (i.e., diseased/not), evaluations are made by exploiting an assay's underlying continuous biomarker distributions for positive and negative individuals. In doing so, a general framework to describe the operating characteristics of group testing case identification algorithms is provided when these distributions are known. The methodology is illustrated using two HIV testing examples taken from the pooling literature.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)156-166
Number of pages11
JournalComputational Statistics and Data Analysis
Volume122
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2018

Fingerprint

Group Testing
Biomarkers
Testing
Pooling
Binary Variables
Operating Characteristics
Infectious Diseases
Evaluation
Screening
Random variable
Classify
Random variables
Methodology
Assays
Costs

Keywords

  • Classification
  • Measurement error
  • Pooled testing
  • Screening
  • Sensitivity
  • Specificity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Statistics and Probability
  • Computational Mathematics
  • Computational Theory and Mathematics
  • Applied Mathematics

Cite this

Group testing case identification with biomarker information. / Wang, Dewei; McMahan, Christopher S.; Tebbs, Joshua M.; Bilder, Christopher R.

In: Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, Vol. 122, 01.06.2018, p. 156-166.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wang, Dewei ; McMahan, Christopher S. ; Tebbs, Joshua M. ; Bilder, Christopher R. / Group testing case identification with biomarker information. In: Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. 2018 ; Vol. 122. pp. 156-166.
@article{f59061d167f747ba8414b7b5cf8910df,
title = "Group testing case identification with biomarker information",
abstract = "Screening procedures for infectious diseases, such as HIV, often involve pooling individual specimens together and testing the pools. For diseases with low prevalence, group testing (or pooled testing) can be used to classify individuals as diseased or not while providing considerable cost savings when compared to testing specimens individually. The pooling literature is replete with group testing case identification algorithms including Dorfman testing, higher-stage hierarchical procedures, and array testing. Although these algorithms are usually evaluated on the basis of the expected number of tests and classification accuracy, most evaluations in the literature do not account for the continuous nature of the testing responses and thus invoke potentially restrictive assumptions to characterize an algorithm's performance. Commonly used case identification algorithms in group testing are considered and are evaluated by taking a different approach. Instead of treating testing responses as binary random variables (i.e., diseased/not), evaluations are made by exploiting an assay's underlying continuous biomarker distributions for positive and negative individuals. In doing so, a general framework to describe the operating characteristics of group testing case identification algorithms is provided when these distributions are known. The methodology is illustrated using two HIV testing examples taken from the pooling literature.",
keywords = "Classification, Measurement error, Pooled testing, Screening, Sensitivity, Specificity",
author = "Dewei Wang and McMahan, {Christopher S.} and Tebbs, {Joshua M.} and Bilder, {Christopher R}",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.csda.2018.01.005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "122",
pages = "156--166",
journal = "Computational Statistics and Data Analysis",
issn = "0167-9473",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Group testing case identification with biomarker information

AU - Wang, Dewei

AU - McMahan, Christopher S.

AU - Tebbs, Joshua M.

AU - Bilder, Christopher R

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - Screening procedures for infectious diseases, such as HIV, often involve pooling individual specimens together and testing the pools. For diseases with low prevalence, group testing (or pooled testing) can be used to classify individuals as diseased or not while providing considerable cost savings when compared to testing specimens individually. The pooling literature is replete with group testing case identification algorithms including Dorfman testing, higher-stage hierarchical procedures, and array testing. Although these algorithms are usually evaluated on the basis of the expected number of tests and classification accuracy, most evaluations in the literature do not account for the continuous nature of the testing responses and thus invoke potentially restrictive assumptions to characterize an algorithm's performance. Commonly used case identification algorithms in group testing are considered and are evaluated by taking a different approach. Instead of treating testing responses as binary random variables (i.e., diseased/not), evaluations are made by exploiting an assay's underlying continuous biomarker distributions for positive and negative individuals. In doing so, a general framework to describe the operating characteristics of group testing case identification algorithms is provided when these distributions are known. The methodology is illustrated using two HIV testing examples taken from the pooling literature.

AB - Screening procedures for infectious diseases, such as HIV, often involve pooling individual specimens together and testing the pools. For diseases with low prevalence, group testing (or pooled testing) can be used to classify individuals as diseased or not while providing considerable cost savings when compared to testing specimens individually. The pooling literature is replete with group testing case identification algorithms including Dorfman testing, higher-stage hierarchical procedures, and array testing. Although these algorithms are usually evaluated on the basis of the expected number of tests and classification accuracy, most evaluations in the literature do not account for the continuous nature of the testing responses and thus invoke potentially restrictive assumptions to characterize an algorithm's performance. Commonly used case identification algorithms in group testing are considered and are evaluated by taking a different approach. Instead of treating testing responses as binary random variables (i.e., diseased/not), evaluations are made by exploiting an assay's underlying continuous biomarker distributions for positive and negative individuals. In doing so, a general framework to describe the operating characteristics of group testing case identification algorithms is provided when these distributions are known. The methodology is illustrated using two HIV testing examples taken from the pooling literature.

KW - Classification

KW - Measurement error

KW - Pooled testing

KW - Screening

KW - Sensitivity

KW - Specificity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041929377&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041929377&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.csda.2018.01.005

DO - 10.1016/j.csda.2018.01.005

M3 - Article

VL - 122

SP - 156

EP - 166

JO - Computational Statistics and Data Analysis

JF - Computational Statistics and Data Analysis

SN - 0167-9473

ER -