Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Combined multiplex panel test results are a poor estimate of disease prevalence without adjustment for test error

View ORCID ProfileRobert Challen, View ORCID ProfileAnastasia Chatzilena, View ORCID ProfileGeorge Qian, Glenda Oben, View ORCID ProfileRachel Kwiatkowska, View ORCID ProfileCatherine Hyams, View ORCID ProfileAdam Finn, View ORCID ProfileKrasimira Tsaneva-Atanasova, View ORCID ProfileLeon Danon
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.12.14.23299860
Robert Challen
1Bristol Vaccine Centre, Schools of Population Health Sciences and of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Department of Engineering Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Robert Challen
  • For correspondence: rob.challen{at}bristol.ac.uk
Anastasia Chatzilena
1Bristol Vaccine Centre, Schools of Population Health Sciences and of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Department of Engineering Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Anastasia Chatzilena
George Qian
1Bristol Vaccine Centre, Schools of Population Health Sciences and of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Department of Engineering Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for George Qian
Glenda Oben
1Bristol Vaccine Centre, Schools of Population Health Sciences and of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Department of Engineering Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rachel Kwiatkowska
3Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, UK
4NIHR Health Protection Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Rachel Kwiatkowska
Catherine Hyams
1Bristol Vaccine Centre, Schools of Population Health Sciences and of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Catherine Hyams
Adam Finn
1Bristol Vaccine Centre, Schools of Population Health Sciences and of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Adam Finn
Krasimira Tsaneva-Atanasova
5Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Exeter, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Krasimira Tsaneva-Atanasova
Leon Danon
1Bristol Vaccine Centre, Schools of Population Health Sciences and of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Department of Engineering Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Leon Danon
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Multiplex panel tests identify many individual pathogens at once, using a set of component tests. In some panels the number of components can be large. If the panel is detecting causative pathogens for a single syndrome or disease then we might estimate the burden of that disease by combining the results of the panel, for example determining the prevalence of pneumococcal pneumonia as caused by many individual pneumococcal serotypes. When we are dealing with multiplex test panels with many components, test error in the individual components of a panel, even when present at very low levels, can cause significant overall error. Uncertainty in the sensitivity and specificity of the individual tests, and statistical fluctuations in the numbers of false positives and false negatives, will cause large uncertainty in the combined estimates of disease prevalence. In many cases this can be a source of significant bias. In this paper we develop a mathematical framework to characterise this issue, present novel statistical methods that adjust for this bias and quantify uncertainty, and use simulation to test these methods. As multiplex testing becomes more commonly used for screening in routine clinical practice, accumulation of test error due to the combination of large numbers of test results needs to be identified and corrected for.

Author summary During analysis of pneumococcal incidence data obtained from serotype specific multiplex urine antigen testing, we identified that despite excellent test sensitivity and specificity, the small error rate in each individual serotype test has the potential to compound and cause large uncertainty in the resulting estimates of pneumococcal prevalence, obtained by combining individual results. This limits the accuracy of estimates of the burden of disease caused by vaccine preventable pneumococcal serotypes, and in certain situations can produce marked bias.

Competing Interest Statement

CH is Principal Investigator of the AvonCAP study which is an investigator-led University of Bristol study funded by Pfizer. AF is a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI). He receives research funding from Pfizer as Chief Investigator of the AvonCAP study and he leads another project investigating transmission of respiratory bacteria in families jointly funded by Pfizer and the Gates Foundation. RC, AC, GQ, GO, RK, and LD receive research funding from Pfizer via the AvonCAP study.

Funding Statement

We would like to acknowledge the help and support of the JUNIPER partnership (MRC grant no MR/X018598/1) which RC and LD and are affiliated with. KTA gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) via grant EP/T017856/1. CH was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) via an Academic Clinical Fellowship (ACF-2015-25-002). The views expressed are those of the authors. Funding for the AvonCAP study was provided by Pfizer, however, the manuscript development and the analysis that is the subject of this manuscript were conducted independently of Pfizer.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data and code produced are available online at https://github.com/bristol-vaccine-centre/testerror

https://github.com/bristol-vaccine-centre/testerror

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted December 15, 2023.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Combined multiplex panel test results are a poor estimate of disease prevalence without adjustment for test error
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Combined multiplex panel test results are a poor estimate of disease prevalence without adjustment for test error
Robert Challen, Anastasia Chatzilena, George Qian, Glenda Oben, Rachel Kwiatkowska, Catherine Hyams, Adam Finn, Krasimira Tsaneva-Atanasova, Leon Danon
medRxiv 2023.12.14.23299860; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.12.14.23299860
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Combined multiplex panel test results are a poor estimate of disease prevalence without adjustment for test error
Robert Challen, Anastasia Chatzilena, George Qian, Glenda Oben, Rachel Kwiatkowska, Catherine Hyams, Adam Finn, Krasimira Tsaneva-Atanasova, Leon Danon
medRxiv 2023.12.14.23299860; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.12.14.23299860

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Epidemiology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)