Literature DB >> 16531470

Pooling biospecimens and limits of detection: effects on ROC curve analysis.

Sunni L Mumford1, Enrique F Schisterman, Albert Vexler, Aiyi Liu.   

Abstract

Frequently, epidemiological studies deal with two restrictions in the evaluation of biomarkers: cost and instrument sensitivity. Costs can hamper the evaluation of the effectiveness of new biomarkers. In addition, many assays are affected by a limit of detection (LOD), depending on the instrument sensitivity. Two common strategies used to cut costs include taking a random sample of the available samples and pooling biospecimens. We compare the two sampling strategies when an LOD effect exists. These strategies are compared by examining the efficiency of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, specifically the estimation of the area under the ROC curve (AUC) for normally distributed markers. We propose and examine a method to estimate AUC when dealing with data from pooled and unpooled samples where an LOD is in effect. In conclusion, pooling is the most efficient cost-cutting strategy when the LOD affects less than 50% of the data. However, when much more than 50% of the data are affected, utilization of the pooling design is not recommended.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16531470     DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxj027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biostatistics        ISSN: 1465-4644            Impact factor:   5.899


  23 in total

1.  Case-control data analysis for randomly pooled biomarkers.

Authors:  Neil J Perkins; Emily M Mitchell; Robert H Lyles; Enrique F Schisterman
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2016-01-29       Impact factor: 2.207

Review 2.  Pooled biological specimens for human biomonitoring of environmental chemicals: opportunities and limitations.

Authors:  Amy L Heffernan; Lesa L Aylward; Leisa-Maree L Toms; Peter D Sly; Matthew Macleod; Jochen F Mueller
Journal:  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2013-11-06       Impact factor: 5.563

3.  Estimation and testing based on data subject to measurement errors: from parametric to non-parametric likelihood methods.

Authors:  Albert Vexler; Wan-Min Tsai; Yaakov Malinovsky
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-07-29       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Positing, fitting, and selecting regression models for pooled biomarker data.

Authors:  Emily M Mitchell; Robert H Lyles; Enrique F Schisterman
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-04-06       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Semiparametric regression models for a right-skewed outcome subject to pooling.

Authors:  Emily M Mitchell; Robert H Lyles; Amita K Manatunga; Enrique F Schisterman
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-03-03       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Estimating covariate-adjusted measures of diagnostic accuracy based on pooled biomarker assessments.

Authors:  Christopher S McMahan; Alexander C McLain; Colin M Gallagher; Enrique F Schisterman
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 2.207

7.  Pooling designs for outcomes under a Gaussian random effects model.

Authors:  Yaakov Malinovsky; Paul S Albert; Enrique F Schisterman
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2011-10-09       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  A general framework for the regression analysis of pooled biomarker assessments.

Authors:  Yan Liu; Christopher McMahan; Colin Gallagher
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-03-28       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Assessment of skewed exposure in case-control studies with pooling.

Authors:  Brian W Whitcomb; Neil J Perkins; Zhiwei Zhang; Aijun Ye; Robert H Lyles
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  A four-antigen mixture for rapid assessment of Onchocerca volvulus infection.

Authors:  Peter D Burbelo; Hannah P Leahy; Michael J Iadarola; Thomas B Nutman
Journal:  PLoS Negl Trop Dis       Date:  2009-05-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.