Dataset Information

A comparison of biomarker based incidence estimators.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cross-sectional surveys utilizing biomarkers that test for recent infection provide a convenient and cost effective way to estimate HIV incidence. In particular, the BED assay has been developed for this purpose. Controversy surrounding the way in which false positive results from the biomarker should be handled has lead to a number of different estimators that account for imperfect specificity. We compare the estimators proposed by McDougal et al., Hargrove et al. and McWalter & Welte.

Methodology/principal findings

The three estimators are analyzed and compared. An identity showing a relationship between the calibration parameters in the McDougal methodology is shown. When the three estimators are tested under a steady state epidemic, which includes individuals who fail to progress on the biomarker, only the McWalter/Welte method recovers an unbiased result.

Conclusions/significance

Our analysis shows that the McDougal estimator can be reduced to a formula that only requires calibration of a mean window period and a long-term specificity. This allows simpler calibration techniques to be used and shows that all three estimators can be expressed using the same set of parameters. The McWalter/Welte method is applicable under the least restrictive assumptions and is the least prone to bias of the methods reviewed.

SUBMITTER: McWalter TA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2753643 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparison of biomarker based incidence estimators.

McWalter Thomas A TA Welte Alex A

PloS one 20091007 10

<h4>Background</h4>Cross-sectional surveys utilizing biomarkers that test for recent infection provide a convenient and cost effective way to estimate HIV incidence. In particular, the BED assay has been developed for this purpose. Controversy surrounding the way in which false positive results from the biomarker should be handled has lead to a number of different estimators that account for imperfect specificity. We compare the estimators proposed by McDougal et al., Hargrove et al. and McWalte ...[more]

PMID: 19809505

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe availability of genome-wide marker data allows estimation of inbreeding coefficients (F, the probability of identity-by-descent, IBD) and, in turn, estimation of the rate of inbreeding depression (ΔID). We investigated, by computer simulations, the accuracy of the most popular estimators of inbreeding based on molecular markers when computing F and ΔID in populations under random mating, equalization of parental contributions, and artificially selected populations. We assessed estimators described by Li and Horvitz (FLH1 and FLH2), VanRaden (FVR1 and FVR2), Yang and colleagues (FYA1 and FYA2), marker homozygosity (FHOM), runs of homozygosity (FROH) and estimates based on pedigree (FPED) in comparison with estimates obtained from IBD measures (FIBD).ResultsIf the allele frequencies of a base population taken as a reference for the computation of inbreeding are known, all estimators based on marker allele frequencies are highly correlated with FIBD and provide accurate estimates of the mean ΔID. If base population allele frequencies are unknown and current frequencies are used in the estimations, the largest correlation with FIBD is generally obtained by FLH1 and the best estimator of ΔID is FYA2. The estimators FVR2 and FLH2 have the poorest performance in most scenarios. The assumption that base population allele frequencies are equal to 0.5 results in very biased estimates of the average inbreeding coefficient but they are highly correlated with FIBD and give relatively good estimates of ΔID. Estimates obtained directly from marker homozygosity (FHOM) substantially overestimated ΔID. Estimates based on runs of homozygosity (FROH) provide accurate estimates of inbreeding and ΔID. Finally, estimates based on pedigree (FPED) show a lower correlation with FIBD than molecular estimators but provide rather accurate estimates of ΔID. An analysis of data from a pig population supports the main findings of the simulations.ConclusionsWhen base population allele frequencies are known, all marker-allele frequency-based estimators of inbreeding coefficients generally show a high correlation with FIBD and provide good estimates of ΔID. When base population allele frequencies are unknown, FLH1 is the marker frequency-based estimator that is most correlated with FIBD, and FYA2 provides the most accurate estimates of ΔID. Estimates from FROH are also very precise in most scenarios. The estimators FVR2 and FLH2 have the poorest performances.

Project description:For many species, breeding population size is an important metric for assessing population status. A variety of simple methods are often used to estimate this metric for ground-nesting birds that nest in open habitats (e.g., beaches, riverine sandbars). The error and bias associated with estimates derived using these methods vary in relation to differing monitoring intensities and detection rates. However, these errors and biases are often difficult to obtain, poorly understood, and largely unreported. A method was developed to estimate the number of breeding pairs using counts of nests and broods from monitoring data where multiple surveys were made throughout a single breeding season (breeding pair estimator; BPE). The BPE method was compared to two commonly used estimation methods using simulated data from an individual-based model that allowed for the comparison of biases and accuracy. The BPE method underestimated the number of breeding pairs, but generally performed better than the other two commonly used methods when detection rates were low and monitoring frequency was high. As detection rates and time between surveys increased, the maximum nest and brood count method performs similar to the BPE. The BPE was compared to four commonly used methods to estimate breeding pairs for empirically derived data sets on the Platte River. Based on our simulated data, we expect our BPE to be closest to the true number of breeding pairs as compared to other methods. The methods tested resulted in substantially different estimates of the numbers of breeding pairs; however, coefficients from trend analyses were not statistically different. When data from multiple nest and brood surveys are available, the BPE appears to result in reasonably precise estimates of numbers of breeding pairs. Regardless of the estimation method, investigators are encouraged to acknowledge whether the method employed is likely to over- or underestimate breeding pairs. This study provides a means to recognize the potential biases in breeding pair estimates.

Dataset Information

A comparison of biomarker based incidence estimators.

Background

Methodology/principal findings

Conclusions/significance

Publications

A comparison of biomarker based incidence estimators.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets