Pooling biospecimens and limits of detection: effects on ROC curve analysis.

Frequently, epidemiological studies deal with two restrictions in the evaluation of biomarkers: cost and instrument sensitivity. Costs can hamper the evaluation of the effectiveness of new biomarkers. In addition, many assays are affected by a limit of detection (LOD), depending on the instrument sensitivity. Two common strategies used to cut costs include taking a random sample of the available samples and pooling biospecimens. We compare the two sampling strategies when an LOD effect exists. These strategies are compared by examining the efficiency of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, specifically the estimation of the area under the ROC curve (AUC) for normally distributed markers. We propose and examine a method to estimate AUC when dealing with data from pooled and unpooled samples where an LOD is in effect. In conclusion, pooling is the most efficient cost-cutting strategy when the LOD affects less than 50% of the data. However, when much more than 50% of the data are affected, utilization of the pooling design is not recommended.

[1]  F. Speizer,et al.  Plasma organochlorine levels and the risk of breast cancer: An extended follow‐up in the Nurses' Health Study , 2001, International journal of cancer.

[2]  R. Hornung,et al.  Estimation of Average Concentration in the Presence of Nondetectable Values , 1990 .

[3]  J. Cerhan,et al.  Epidemiologic Evaluation of Measurement Data in the Presence of Detection Limits , 2004, Environmental Health Perspectives.

[4]  P. Robinson The interpretation of diagnostic tests. , 1987, Nuclear medicine communications.

[5]  F. Laden,et al.  Environmental risk factors and female breast cancer. , 1998, Annual review of public health.

[6]  B. Reiser,et al.  Estimation of the area under the ROC curve , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  N. Perkins,et al.  Optimal Cut-point and Its Corresponding Youden Index to Discriminate Individuals Using Pooled Blood Samples , 2005, Epidemiology.

[8]  Enrique F. Schisterman,et al.  Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy of Biomarkers With Pooled Assessments , 2003 .

[9]  C R Weinberg,et al.  Using Pooled Exposure Assessment to Improve Efficiency in Case‐Control Studies , 1999, Biometrics.

[10]  A. Gupta,et al.  ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF A NORMAL POPULATION FROM A CENSORED SAMPLE , 1952 .

[11]  S. Kotz,et al.  The stress-strength model and its generalizations : theory and applications , 2003 .

[12]  Mitchell H. Gail,et al.  A family of nonparametric statistics for comparing diagnostic markers with paired or unpaired data , 1989 .

[13]  Enrique F Schisterman,et al.  Roc Curve Analysis for Biomarkers Based on Pooled Assessments , 2022 .

[14]  E F Schisterman,et al.  To Pool or not to Pool, from Whether to When: Applications of Pooling to Biospecimen with Incomplete Measurements , 2006 .

[15]  Karl E. Peace,et al.  To Pool or Not (to Pool) , 1994 .

[16]  D. Bamber The area above the ordinal dominance graph and the area below the receiver operating characteristic graph , 1975 .

[17]  D. Verma,et al.  Exposure estimation in the presence of nondetectable values: another look. , 2001, AIHAJ : a journal for the science of occupational and environmental health and safety.

[18]  B. Whitcomb,et al.  Environmental PCB exposure and risk of endometriosis. , 2005, Human reproduction.