×

Robustness of group testing in the estimation of proportions. (English) Zbl 1059.62605

Summary: In binomial group testing, unlike one-at-a-time testing, the test unit consists of a group of individuals, and each group is declared to be defective or nondefective. A defective group is one that is presumed to include one or more defective (e.g., infected, positive) individuals and a nondefective group to contain only nondefective individuals. The usual binomial model considers the individuals being grouped as independent and identically distributed Bernoulli random variables. Under the binomial model and presuming that groups are tested and classified without error, it has been shown that, when the proportion of defective individuals is low, group testing is often preferable to individual testing for identifying infected individuals and for estimating proportions of defectives. We discuss the robustness of group testing for estimating proportions when the underlying assumptions of (i) no testing errors and (ii) independent individuals are violated. To evaluate the effect of these model violations, two dilution-effect models and a serial correlation model are considered. Group testing proved to be quite robust to serial correlation. In the presence of a dilution effect, smaller group sizes should be used, but most of the benefits of group testing can still be realized.

MSC:

62N03 Testing in survival analysis and censored data
62G35 Nonparametric robustness
62P10 Applications of statistics to biology and medical sciences; meta analysis
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Barton D. E., Biometrika 45 pp 572– (1958)
[2] Bhat U. N., Elements of Applied Stochastic Processes, 2. ed. (1984) · Zbl 0646.60001
[3] Caboon-Young B., Journal of Clinical Microbiology 27 pp 1893– (1989)
[4] Chen C. L., Biometrics 46 pp 1035– (1990)
[5] Chen C. L., Biometrical Journal 37 pp 173– (1995)
[6] Chiang C. L., American Journal of Hygiene 75 pp 377– (1962)
[7] Emmanuel J. C., Journal of Clinical Pathology 41 pp 582– (1988)
[8] DOI: 10.1016/0378-3758(89)90061-X · doi:10.1016/0378-3758(89)90061-X
[9] Gibbs A. J., Annals of Applied Biology 48 pp 75– (1960)
[10] Griffiths D. A., Biometrics 28 pp 1133– (1972)
[11] Hughes-Oliver J. M., Journal of the American Statistical Association 89 pp 982– (1994)
[12] Hwang F. K., Journal of Qualitative Technology 16 pp 189– (1984)
[13] Kline R. L., Journal of Clinical Microbiology 27 pp 1449– (1989)
[14] Lehmann E. L., Testing Statistical Hypotheses, 2. ed. (1986) · Zbl 0608.62020 · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-1923-9
[15] Litvak E., Journal of the American Statistical Association 89 pp 424– (1994)
[16] Monzon O. T., AIDS 6 pp 43– (1992)
[17] Sobel M., Biometrika 62 pp 181– (1975)
[18] Swallow W. H., Phytopathology 75 pp 882– (1985)
[19] Swallow W. H., Phytopathology 77 pp 1376– (1987)
[20] Thompson K. H., Biometrics 18 pp 568– (1962)
[21] Tu X. M., Statistics in Medicine 13 pp 1905– (1994)
[22] Tu X. M., Biometrika 82 pp 287– (1995)
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.