Optimal allocation of limited test resources for the quantification of COVID-19 infections

  1. Michail Chatzimanolakis
  2. Pascal Weber
  3. Georgios Arampatzis
  4. Daniel Wälchli
  5. Ivica Kičić
  6. Petr Karnakov
  7. Costas Papadimitriou
  8. Petros Koumoutsakos

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The systematic identification of infected individuals is critical for the containment of the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently, the spread of the disease is mostly quantified by the reported numbers of infections, hospitalisations, recoveries and deaths; these quantities inform epidemiology models that provide forecasts for the spread of the epidemic and guide policy making. The veracity of these forecasts depends on the discrepancy between the numbers of reported, and unreported yet infectious, individuals. We combine Bayesian experimental design with an epidemiology model and propose a methodology for the optimal allocation of limited testing resources in space and time, which maximises the information gain for such unreported infections. The proposed approach is applicable at the onset and spread of the epidemic and can forewarn of a possible recurrence of the disease after relaxation of interventions. We examine its application in Switzerland; the open source software is, however, readily adaptable to countries around the world. We find that following the proposed methodology can lead to vastly less uncertain predictions for the spread of the disease, thus improving estimates of the effective reproduction number and the future number of unreported infections. This information can provide timely and systematic guidance for the effective identification of infectious individuals and for decision-making regarding lockdown measures and the distribution of vaccines.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.4414/smw.2020.20445
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.09.20228320: (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: Thank you for sharing your code.

    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 10.1101/2020.11.09.20228320 on medRxiv