Cargando…

False Negative Mitigation in Group Testing for COVID-19 Screening

After lifting the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions and opening businesses, screening is essential to prevent the spread of the virus. Group testing could be a promising candidate for screening to save time and resources. However, due to the high false-negative rate (FNR) of the RT-PCR diagnostic test,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alizad-Rahvar, Amir Reza, Vafadar, Safar, Totonchi, Mehdi, Sadeghi, Mehdi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8170512/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34095171
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.661277
_version_ 1783702260755202048
author Alizad-Rahvar, Amir Reza
Vafadar, Safar
Totonchi, Mehdi
Sadeghi, Mehdi
author_facet Alizad-Rahvar, Amir Reza
Vafadar, Safar
Totonchi, Mehdi
Sadeghi, Mehdi
author_sort Alizad-Rahvar, Amir Reza
collection PubMed
description After lifting the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions and opening businesses, screening is essential to prevent the spread of the virus. Group testing could be a promising candidate for screening to save time and resources. However, due to the high false-negative rate (FNR) of the RT-PCR diagnostic test, we should be cautious about using group testing because a group's false-negative result identifies all the individuals in a group as uninfected. Repeating the test is the best solution to reduce the FNR, and repeats should be integrated with the group-testing method to increase the sensitivity of the test. The simplest way is to replicate the test twice for each group (the 2Rgt method). In this paper, we present a new method for group testing (the groupMix method), which integrates two repeats in the test. Then we introduce the 2-stage sequential version of both the groupMix and the 2Rgt methods. We compare these methods analytically regarding the sensitivity and the average number of tests. The tradeoff between the sensitivity and the average number of tests should be considered when choosing the best method for the screening strategy. We applied the groupMix method to screening 263 people and identified 2 infected individuals by performing 98 tests. This method achieved a 63% saving in the number of tests compared to individual testing. Our experimental results show that in COVID-19 screening, the viral load can be low, and the group size should not be more than 6; otherwise, the FNR increases significantly. A web interface of the groupMix method is publicly available for laboratories to implement this method.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8170512
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81705122021-06-03 False Negative Mitigation in Group Testing for COVID-19 Screening Alizad-Rahvar, Amir Reza Vafadar, Safar Totonchi, Mehdi Sadeghi, Mehdi Front Med (Lausanne) Medicine After lifting the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions and opening businesses, screening is essential to prevent the spread of the virus. Group testing could be a promising candidate for screening to save time and resources. However, due to the high false-negative rate (FNR) of the RT-PCR diagnostic test, we should be cautious about using group testing because a group's false-negative result identifies all the individuals in a group as uninfected. Repeating the test is the best solution to reduce the FNR, and repeats should be integrated with the group-testing method to increase the sensitivity of the test. The simplest way is to replicate the test twice for each group (the 2Rgt method). In this paper, we present a new method for group testing (the groupMix method), which integrates two repeats in the test. Then we introduce the 2-stage sequential version of both the groupMix and the 2Rgt methods. We compare these methods analytically regarding the sensitivity and the average number of tests. The tradeoff between the sensitivity and the average number of tests should be considered when choosing the best method for the screening strategy. We applied the groupMix method to screening 263 people and identified 2 infected individuals by performing 98 tests. This method achieved a 63% saving in the number of tests compared to individual testing. Our experimental results show that in COVID-19 screening, the viral load can be low, and the group size should not be more than 6; otherwise, the FNR increases significantly. A web interface of the groupMix method is publicly available for laboratories to implement this method. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-05-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8170512/ /pubmed/34095171 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.661277 Text en Copyright © 2021 Alizad-Rahvar, Vafadar, Totonchi and Sadeghi. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Medicine
Alizad-Rahvar, Amir Reza
Vafadar, Safar
Totonchi, Mehdi
Sadeghi, Mehdi
False Negative Mitigation in Group Testing for COVID-19 Screening
title False Negative Mitigation in Group Testing for COVID-19 Screening
title_full False Negative Mitigation in Group Testing for COVID-19 Screening
title_fullStr False Negative Mitigation in Group Testing for COVID-19 Screening
title_full_unstemmed False Negative Mitigation in Group Testing for COVID-19 Screening
title_short False Negative Mitigation in Group Testing for COVID-19 Screening
title_sort false negative mitigation in group testing for covid-19 screening
topic Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8170512/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34095171
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.661277
work_keys_str_mv AT alizadrahvaramirreza falsenegativemitigationingrouptestingforcovid19screening
AT vafadarsafar falsenegativemitigationingrouptestingforcovid19screening
AT totonchimehdi falsenegativemitigationingrouptestingforcovid19screening
AT sadeghimehdi falsenegativemitigationingrouptestingforcovid19screening