Optimising SARS-CoV-2 pooled testing strategies on social networks for low-resource settings

  1. K I Mazzitello
  2. Y Jiang
  3. C M Arizmendi

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Controlling the COVID-19 pandemic is an urgent global challenge. The rapid geographic spread of SARS-CoV-2 directly reflects the social structure. Before effective vaccines and treatments are widely available, we have to rely on alternative, non-pharmaceutical interventions, including frequent testing, contact tracing, social distancing, mask wearing, and hand-washing, as public health practises to slow down the spread of the disease. However, frequent testing is the key in the absence of any alternative. We propose a network approach to determine the optimal low resources setting oriented pool testing strategies that identifies infected individuals in a small number of tests and few rounds of testing, at low prevalence of the virus. We simulate stochastic infection curves on societies under quarantine. Allowing some social interaction is possible to keep the COVID-19 curve flat. However, similar results can be strategically obtained searching and isolating infected persons to preserve a healthier social structure. Here, we analyze which are the best strategies to contain the virus applying an algorithm that combine samples and testing them in groups [1]. A relevant parameter to keep infection curves flat using this algorithm is the daily frequency of testing at zones where a high infection rate is reported. On the other hand, the algorithm efficiency is low for random search of infected people.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1088/1751-8121/ac039b
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.13.20249064: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.01.13.20249064 on medRxiv