BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Paul S. Albert

Paul S. Albert contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
ApplicationsMethodologymath.PRstat.OT

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
4topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

Is Group Testing Ready for Prime-time in Disease Identification?

Large scale disease screening is a complicated process in which high costs must be balanced against pressing public health needs. When the goal is screening for infectious disease, one approach is group testing in which samples are initially tested in pools and individual samples are retested only if the initial pooled test was positive. Intuitively, if the prevalence of infection is small, this could result in a large reduction of the total number of tests required. Despite this, the use of group testing in medical studies has been limited, largely due to skepticism about the impact of pooling on the accuracy of a given assay. While there is a large body of research addressing the issue of testing errors in group testing studies, it is customary to assume that the misclassification parameters are known from an external population and/or that the values do not change with the group size. Both of these assumptions are highly questionable for many medical practitioners considering group testing in their study design. In this article, we explore how the failure of these assumptions might impact the efficacy of a group testing design and, consequently, whether group testing is currently feasible for medical screening. Specifically, we look at how incorrect assumptions about the sensitivity function at the design stage can lead to poor estimation of a procedure's overall sensitivity and expected number of tests. Furthermore, if a validation study is used to estimate the pooled misclassification parameters of a given assay, we show that the sample sizes required are so large as to be prohibitive in all but the largest screening programs

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Nested Group Testing Procedures for Screening

This article reviews a class of adaptive group testing procedures that operate under a probabilistic model assumption as follows. Consider a set of $N$ items, where item $i$ has the probability $p$ ($p_i$ in the generalized group testing) to be defective, and the probability $1-p$ to be non-defective independent from the other items. A group test applied to any subset of size $n$ is a binary test with two possible outcomes, positive or negative. The outcome is negative if all $n$ items are non-defective, whereas the outcome is positive if at least one item among the $n$ items is defective. The goal is complete identification of all $N$ items with the minimum expected number of tests.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

An optimal design for hierarchical generalized group testing

Choosing an optimal strategy for hierarchical group testing is an important problem for practitioners who are interested in disease screening with limited resources. For example, when screening for infectious diseases in large populations, it is important to use algorithms that minimize the cost of potentially expensive assays. Black et al. (2015) described this as an intractable problem unless the number of individuals to screen is small. They proposed an approximation to an optimal strategy that is difficult to implement for large population sizes. In this article, we develop an optimal design with respect to the expected total number of tests that can be obtained using a novel dynamic programming algorithm. We show that this algorithm is substantially more efficient than the approach proposed by Black et al. (2015). In addition, we compare the two designs for imperfect tests. R code is provided for the practitioner.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

An approach for jointly modeling multivariate longitudinal measurements and discrete time-to-event data

In many medical studies, patients are followed longitudinally and interest is on assessing the relationship between longitudinal measurements and time to an event. Recently, various authors have proposed joint modeling approaches for longitudinal and time-to-event data for a single longitudinal variable. These joint modeling approaches become intractable with even a few longitudinal variables. In this paper we propose a regression calibration approach for jointly modeling multiple longitudinal measurements and discrete time-to-event data. Ideally, a two-stage modeling approach could be applied in which the multiple longitudinal measurements are modeled in the first stage and the longitudinal model is related to the time-to-event data in the second stage. Biased parameter estimation due to informative dropout makes this direct two-stage modeling approach problematic. We propose a regression calibration approach which appropriately accounts for informative dropout. We approximate the conditional distribution of the multiple longitudinal measurements given the event time by modeling all pairwise combinations of the longitudinal measurements using a bivariate linear mixed model which conditions on the event time. Complete data are then simulated based on estimates from these pairwise conditional models, and regression calibration is used to estimate the relationship between longitudinal data and time-to-event data using the complete data. We show that this approach performs well in estimating the relationship between multivariate longitudinal measurements and the time-to-event data and in estimating the parameters of the multiple longitudinal process subject to informative dropout. We illustrate this methodology with simulations and with an analysis of primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access