Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Mar;68(1):287-96.
doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01644.x. Epub 2011 Jul 15.

Informative Dorfman screening

Affiliations

Informative Dorfman screening

Christopher S McMahan et al. Biometrics. 2012 Mar.

Abstract

Since the early 1940s, group testing (pooled testing) has been used to reduce costs in a variety of applications, including infectious disease screening, drug discovery, and genetics. In such applications, the goal is often to classify individuals as positive or negative using initial group testing results and the subsequent process of decoding of positive pools. Many decoding algorithms have been proposed, but most fail to acknowledge, and to further exploit, the heterogeneous nature of the individuals being screened. In this article, we use individuals' risk probabilities to formulate new informative decoding algorithms that implement Dorfman retesting in a heterogeneous population. We introduce the concept of "thresholding" to classify individuals as "high" or "low risk," so that separate, risk-specific algorithms may be used, while simultaneously identifying pool sizes that minimize the expected number of tests. When compared to competing algorithms which treat the population as homogeneous, we show that significant gains in testing efficiency can be realized with virtually no loss in screening accuracy. An important additional benefit is that our new procedures are easy to implement. We apply our methods to chlamydia and gonorrhea data collected recently in Nebraska as part of the Infertility Prevention Project.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Comparison of Dorfman algorithms. Expected per-individual efficiency, with M = 10 and N = 1000, for p = 0.01, 0.05, 0.10, 0.20, and 0.30. The optimal pool size for D has been used. A more comprehensive comparison among D, OD, TOD, PSOD, and H is in Web Appendix C.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of Dorfman algorithms (OD, TOD, and PSOD) with A when M = 10 and N = 1000. Top: OD versus A; Middle: TOD versus A; Bottom: PSOD versus A. Regions in dark grey denote those where the Dorfman procedures are more efficient. The optimal (square) array size for A has been used for each (p, Se, Sp) configuration.

Comment in

References

    1. Alter H. Emerging, re-emerging, and submerging infectious threats to the blood supply. Vox Sanguinis. 2004;87:56–61. - PubMed
    1. Bilder C, Tebbs J, Chen P. Informative retesting. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2010;105:942–955. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Butylkina R, Juseviciute V, Kasparaviciene G, Vagoras A, Pagirskas E, Unemo M, Domeika M. Pooling of urine specimens allows accurate and cost-effective genetic detection of Chlamydia Trachomatis in Lithuania and other low-resource countries. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2007;39:209–212. - PubMed
    1. Centers for Disease Control . Trends in reportable sexually transmitted diseases in the United States, 2007. 2009. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/STD/stats07/trends.htm.
    1. Dodd R, Notari E, Stramer S. Current prevalence and incidence of infectious disease markers and estimated window-period risk in the American Red Cross donor population. Transfusion. 2002;42:975–979. - PubMed

Publication types