Abstract

Group testing is a method of pooling a number of units together and performing a single test on the resulting group. It is an appealing option when few individual units are thought to be infected leading to reduced costs of testing as compared to individually testing the units. Group testing aims to identify the positive groups in all the groups tested or to estimate the proportion of positives (p) in a population. Interval estimation methods of the proportions in group testing for unequal group sizes adjusted for overdispersion have been examined. Lately improvement in statistical methods allows the construction of highly accurate confidence intervals (CIs). The aim here is to apply group testing for estimation and generate highly accurate Bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) for the proportion of defective or positive units in particular. This study provided a comparison of several proven methods of constructing CIs for a binomial proportion after adjusting for overdispersion in group testing with groups of unequal sizes. Bootstrap resampling was applied on data simulated from binomial distribution, and confidence intervals with high coverage probabilities were produced. This data was assumed to be overdispersed and independent between groups but correlated within these groups. Interval estimation methods based on the Wald, the Logit and Complementary log-log (CLL) functions were considered. The criterion used in the comparisons is mainly the coverage probabilities attained by nominal 95% CIs, though interval width is also regarded. Bootstrapping produced CIs with high coverage probabilities for each of the three interval methods.

Highlights

  • Group testing started or originated with [1] during World War II as a frugal method of testing blood specimens of army inductees in order to detect the presence of infection

  • The quasi-likelihood approach to correct for overdispersion is used by [6], he examines interval estimation methods based on functions of the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), the Logit and Complementary log-log (CLL) functions

  • A quasi-likelihood approach can be employed to correct for the overdispersion phenomenon which occurs with binary data [15]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Group testing started or originated with [1] during World War II as a frugal method of testing blood specimens of army inductees in order to detect the presence of infection. It has been observed that there is a tendency of littermates to respond more alike than animals from different litters, the “litter effect” This litter effect is known as the extra-dispersion (over/underdispersion) or the intra-litter correlation. The maximum likelihood as an estimator has been studied and seconded as an approach for using the proposed extended Beta-Binomial (BB) model to analyze over/under-dispersed proportions [8]. They estimated this parameter using maximum likelihood estimation (MLE). Studies on point estimation in terms of bias and efficiency and the test for presence of overdispersion for both counts and proportions data have been done [10]. The quasi-likelihood approach to correct for overdispersion is used by [6], he examines interval estimation methods based on functions of the MLE, the Logit and CLL functions

Bootstrapping
Confidence Intervals Based on the Maximum Quasi-Likelihood Estimate
Confidence Intervals Based on the Logit
Choice of Group Sizes
Interval Width and Coverage Probability
Simulation
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call