Estimating prevalence and test accuracy in disease ecology: How Bayesian latent class analysis can boost or bias imperfect test results

Abstract

Obtaining accurate estimates of disease prevalence is crucial for the monitoring and management of wildlife populations but can be difficult if different diagnostic tests yield conflicting results and if the accuracy of each diagnostic test is unknown. Bayesian latent class analysis (BLCA) modeling offers a potential solution, providing estimates of prevalence levels and diagnostic test accuracy under the realistic assumption that no diagnostic test is perfect. In typical applications of this approach, the specificity of one test is fixed at or close to 100%, allowing the model to simultaneously estimate the sensitivity and specificity of all other tests, in addition to infection prevalence. In wildlife systems, a test with near‐perfect specificity is not always available, so we simulated data to investigate how decreasing this fixed specificity value affects the accuracy of model estimates. We used simulations to explore how the trade‐off between diagnostic test specificity and sensitivity impacts prevalence estimates and found that directional biases depend on pathogen prevalence. Both the precision and accuracy of results depend on the sample size, the diagnostic tests used, and the true infection prevalence, so these factors should be considered when applying BLCA to estimate disease prevalence and diagnostic test accuracy in wildlife systems. A wildlife disease case study, focusing on leptospirosis in California sea lions, demonstrated the potential for Bayesian latent class methods to provide reliable estimates under real‐world conditions. We delineate conditions under which BLCA improves upon the results from a single diagnostic across a range of prevalence levels and sample sizes, demonstrating when this method is preferable for disease ecologists working in a wide variety of pathogen systems.

Two‐phase Bayesian latent class analysis to assess diagnostic test performance in the absence of a gold standard: COVID‐19 serological assays as a proof of concept

“…Seroprevalence estimates can vary greatly depending on the choice of prior parameter estimates [44], although this was not the case in our study. The CrIs obtained with informed and neutral priors were almost identical, which suggests that the data collected for this study support a seroprevalence of ~0.5%–0.9% during the first wave of the pandemic.…”

Detection of Low MAP Shedder Prevalence in Large Free-Stall Dairy Herds by Repeated Testing of Environmental Samples and Pooled Milk Samples

“…There exists more than one reference test for MAP, and latent class models can generate more generalizable outputs [ 69 ]. An evaluation of whether latent class models are suitable for situations with very low prevalence and many presumably false-negative results is beyond the scope of this study, but should be evaluated in simulation studies (see, e.g., [ 73 , 74 ]).…”

Evaluation of Salivary Biomarkers of Periodontal Disease Based on Smoking Status: A Systematic Review

“…All seven studies analyzed in our study were observational studies; longitudinal randomized trials may provide more reliable results [ 50 , 51 ]. However, studies of salivary biomarkers useful for diagnosing PD according to smoking status may be difficult to follow-up on at a large scale due to specific problems such as disease progression [ 53 , 54 ] and disease susceptibility in older people [ 55 ]. To address the limits and utilize large-scale and cost-effective biological information that would be unsuitable for a smaller sample size, further studies will need to collaborate with major networks such as big data surveyed at the national level.…”