We gratefully acknowledge support from
the Simons Foundation and member institutions.
Full-text links:

Download:

Current browse context:

stat.ME

Change to browse by:

References & Citations

Bookmark

(what is this?)
CiteULike logo BibSonomy logo Mendeley logo del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo ScienceWISE logo

Statistics > Methodology

Title: A comparison of group testing architectures for COVID-19 testing

Abstract: An important component of every country's COVID-19 response is fast and efficient testing - to identify and isolate cases, as well as for early detection of local hotspots. For many countries, producing a sufficient number of tests has been a serious limiting factor in their efforts to control COVID-19 infections. Group testing is a well-established mathematical tool, which can provide a substantial and inexpensive expansion of testing capacity. In this note, we compare several popular group testing schemes in the context of qPCR testing for COVID-19. We find that in practical settings, for identification of individuals with COVID-19, Dorfman testing is the best choice at prevalences up to 30%, while for estimation of COVID-19 prevalence rates in the total population, Gibbs-Gower testing is the best choice at prevalences up to 30% given a fixed and relatively small number of tests. For instance, at a prevalence of up to 2%, Dorfman testing gives an efficiency gain of 3.5--8; at 1% prevalence, Gibbs-Gower testing gives an efficiency gain of 18, even when capping the pool size at a feasible number .
This note is intended as a helpful handbook for labs implementing group testing methods.
Comments: 19 pages, 4 figures
Subjects: Methodology (stat.ME); Quantitative Methods (q-bio.QM)
Cite as: arXiv:2005.03051 [stat.ME]
  (or arXiv:2005.03051v2 [stat.ME] for this version)

Submission history

From: Y Cooper [view email]
[v1] Wed, 6 May 2020 18:01:31 GMT (11kb)
[v2] Fri, 23 Oct 2020 21:18:06 GMT (73kb,D)

Link back to: arXiv, form interface, contact.