COVID-19 RISK EVALUATION AND TESTING STRATEGIES BASED ON CONTACT TRACING NETWORK AND INFORMATION ANALYSIS
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Contact tracing and efficient testing can have an imperative part in mitigating the COVID-19 spread, with minimal social and economic disruption. Testing serves many purposes: isolating the COVID-19 positive tested individuals, identifying the contacts at the risk, and locating the hotspots and safe zones for administrative planning. However, it is a challenging task to identify the right individuals for the test in view of the high COVID -19 spread, a large number of presymptomatic and asymptomatic cases, and limited testing capabilities. The individuals for COVID -19 are currently identified based on direct-contact, travel history, and symptoms, which are more individualized and do not explicitly include a group risk assessment, and in turn, do not preclude the transmission from the superspreaders. Policymakers need to limit testing in the shortage of test resources, and focus on gaining the most information from the tests performed. In this work, we introduce a protocol for the identification of the group of individuals to be tested for acquiring maximum risk information of a community with minimum individual tests performed. Firstly, an algorithm is proposed to determine the risk profile of all the individuals in the community by incorporating serial and parallel pathways of the infection transmission considering multiple steps of transmission. Next, we consider several potential groups that could be tested from the community, and analyze them one by one for their comparison. In a group, few individuals can be positive, and the remaining few can be negative, generating sets of several test-outcomes with unequal probabilities. The protocol involves the probability calculation and reassessment of the network’s risk profile in all the test output cases. Finally, the best group is identified in all the groups studied, in which risk profiles between post and pre-test are maximally different. The analysis shows that in general, information increases with an increase in the group size. Notably, a strategically chosen small group may provide more information from the test results, than a standard larger group. The proposed systematic strategy would help in the selection of the right individuals for the testing, and in extracting far more information from the minimum samples, to effectively aid the epidemic mitigation. The protocol is generic, and can also be applied to any other epidemic spread in the future.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.30.20240762: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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 …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.30.20240762: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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.
-
