Abstract
The use of multiple tests can improve medical decision making. The patient utility maximizing combination of these tests involves balancing the benefits of correctly treating ill patients and avoiding unnecessary treatment for healthy individuals against the potential harms of missed diagnoses or inappropriate treatments. We quantify the incremental net benefit (INB) of single and multiple tests by accounting for a patient's pre-test probability of disease and the associated benefits and harms of treatment. We decompose the INB into two components: one that captures the value of information provided by the test, independent of the cost and possible harm of testing, and another that accounts for test costs and harm. We examine conjunctive, disjunctive, and majority aggregation functions, demonstrating their application through examples in prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, and stable coronary artery disease diagnostics. Using empirical test and cost data, we identify decision boundaries to determine when conjunctive, disjunctive, majority, or even single tests are optimal, based on a patient's pre-test probability of disease and the cost-benefit tradeoff of treatment. In all three cases, we find that the optimal choice of combined tests depends on both the cost-benefit tradeoff of treatment and the probability of disease. An online tool that visualizes the INB for combined tests is available at https://optimal-testing.streamlit.app/.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Financial support for this study was provided in part by a grant from hessian.AI and the Army Research Office (W911NF-23-1-0129) to LB.
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I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos