Two-Stage Adaptive Pooling with RT-qPCR for COVID-19 Screening

  1. Anoosheh Heidarzadeh
  2. Krishna Narayanan

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

We propose two-stage adaptive pooling schemes, 2-STAP and 2-STAMP, for detecting COVID-19 using real-time reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) test kits. Similar to the Tapestry scheme of Ghosh et al ., the proposed schemes leverage soft information from the RT-qPCR process about the total viral load in the pool. This is in contrast to conventional group testing schemes where the measurements are Boolean. The proposed schemes provide higher testing throughput than the popularly used Dorfman’s scheme. They also provide higher testing throughput, sensitivity and specificity than the state-of-the-art non-adaptive Tapestry scheme. The number of pipetting operations is lower than state-of-the-art non-adaptive pooling schemes, and is higher than that for the Dorfman’s scheme. The proposed schemes can work with substantially smaller group sizes than non-adaptive schemes and are simple to describe. Monte-Carlo simulations using the statistical model in the work of Ghosh et al . (Tapestry) show that 10 infected people in a population of size 961 can be identified with 70.86 tests on the average with a sensitivity of 99.50% and specificity of 99.62%. This is 13.5x, 4.24x, and 1.3x the testing throughput of individual testing, Dorfman’s testing, and the Tapestry scheme, respectively.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.05.20146936: (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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.07.05.20146936v1 on medRxiv