Literature DB >> 30353548

Informative group testing for multiplex assays.

Christopher R Bilder1, Joshua M Tebbs2, Christopher S McMahan3.   

Abstract

Infectious disease testing frequently takes advantage of two tools-group testing and multiplex assays-to make testing timely and cost effective. Until the work of Tebbs et al. (2013) and Hou et al. (2017), there was no research available to understand how best to apply these tools simultaneously. This recent work focused on applications where each individual is considered to be identical in terms of the probability of disease. However, risk-factor information, such as past behavior and presence of symptoms, is very often available on each individual to allow one to estimate individual-specific probabilities. The purpose of our paper is to propose the first group testing algorithms for multiplex assays that take advantage of individual risk-factor information as expressed by these probabilities. We show that our methods significantly reduce the number of tests required while preserving accuracy. Throughout this paper, we focus on applying our methods with the Aptima Combo 2 Assay that is used worldwide for chlamydia and gonorrhea screening.
© 2018 International Biometric Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  case identification; correlated binary data; latent response; pooled testing; sensitivity; specificity

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30353548     DOI: 10.1111/biom.12988

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  6 in total

1.  Comparison between Aptima® assays (Hologic) and the CoBAS® 6800 system (Roche) for the diagnosis of sexually transmitted infections caused by Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Mycoplasma genitalium.

Authors:  Antonio Barrientos-Durán; Adolfo de Salazar; Ana Fuentes-López; Esther Serrano-Conde; Beatriz Espadafor; Natalia Chueca; Marta Álvarez-Estévez; Federico Garcia
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2021-01-25       Impact factor: 3.267

2.  The objective function controversy for group testing: Much ado about nothing?

Authors:  Brianna D Hitt; Christopher R Bilder; Joshua M Tebbs; Christopher S McMahan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2019-08-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Simulation of group testing scenarios can boost COVID-19 screening power.

Authors:  Vinicius Henrique da Silva; Carolina Purcell Goes; Priscila Anchieta Trevisoli; Raquel Lello; Luan Gaspar Clemente; Talita Bonato de Almeida; Juliana Petrini; Luiz Lehmann Coutinho
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-13       Impact factor: 4.996

4.  Nonparametric estimation of distributions and diagnostic accuracy based on group-tested results with differential misclassification.

Authors:  Wei Zhang; Aiyi Liu; Qizhai Li; Paul S Albert
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2020-03-05       Impact factor: 1.701

5.  Pooled testing with replication as a mass testing strategy for the COVID-19 pandemics.

Authors:  Julius Žilinskas; Algirdas Lančinskas; Mario R Guarracino
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Pooling saliva samples as an excellent option to increase the surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 when re-opening community settings.

Authors:  Joaquín Moreno-Contreras; Marco A Espinoza; Carlos Sandoval-Jaime; Marco A Cantú-Cuevas; Daniel A Madrid-González; Héctor Barón-Olivares; Oscar D Ortiz-Orozco; Asunción V Muñoz-Rangel; Cecilia Guzmán-Rodríguez; Manuel Hernández-de la Cruz; César M Eroza-Osorio; Carlos F Arias; Susana López
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-01-25       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.