Abstract
We provide a comparison of general strategies for group testing in view of their application to medical diagnosis in the current COVID-19 pandemic. We find significant efficiency gaps between different group testing strategies in realistic scenarios for SARS-CoV-2 testing, highlighting the need for an informed decision of the pooling protocol depending on estimated prevalence, target specificity, and high- vs. low-risk population. For example, using one of the presented methods, all 1.47 million inhabitants of Munich, Germany, could be tested using only around 141 thousand tests if an infection rate up to 0.4% is assumed. Using 1 million tests, the 6.69 million inhabitants from the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, could be tested as long as the infection rate does not exceed 1%. Altogether this work may help provide a basis for efficient upscaling of current testing procedures, fine grained towards the desired study population, e.g. cross-sectional versus health-care workers and adapted mixtures thereof. For comparative visualization and querying of the precomputed results we provide an interactive web application. The source code for computation is open and freely available.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
CMV gratefully acknowledge support by German Science Foundation (DFG) within the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize under Grant BO 1734/20-1, under contract number PO-1347/3-2 and within Germany’s Excellence Strategy EXC-2111 390814868. CMV and FK gratefully acknowledge support by German Science Foundation in the context of the Emmy Noether junior research group KR 4512/1-1. TF and FK gratefully support funding by German Science Foundation (project KR 4512/2-2). FJT gratefully acknowledges support by the BMBF (grant# 01IS18036A and grant# 01IS18053A) and by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative DAF (advised fund of Silicon Valley Community Foundation, 182835). JB and DE gratefully acknowledge support by Austrian Science Fund (FWF) under grants I3403-N32 and P 30148. PG and PH declare that no external funding was received and DSF acknowledges support from a German Research Foundation (DFG) fellowship through the Graduate School of Quantitative Biosciences Munich (QBM) [GSC 1006 to D.S.F.] and by the Joachim Herz Stiftung.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵‡ T. Fuchs, F. Krahmer, F. J. Theis and C. M. Verdun are with the Department of Mathematics, Technical University of Munich. C. M. Verdun is also with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Technical University of Munich. J. Berner, D. Elbrӓchter and P. Grohs are with the Faculty of Mathematics, University of Vienna. P. Grohs is also with the Research Platform Data Science, University of Vienna and the Johann Radon Institute for Computational and Applied Mathematics, Austrian Academy of Sciences. P. Harar is also with the Research Platform Data Science, University of Vienna and Department of Telecommunications, Brno University of Technology. D. S. Fischer and F. J. Theis are with the Institute of Computational Biology at the Helmholtz ZentrumMünchen. Corresponding author for the repository: pavol.harar{at}univie.ac.at. Corresponding authors: felix.krahmer{at}tum.de, fabian.theis{at}helmholtz-muenchen.de, philipp.grohs{at}univie.ac.at.
↵3 One could expect that the expected number of tests per person of a group testing method does not improve for an increasing prevalence. Nevertheless, Table 3 indicates the opposite for low infection rates and sensitivity Se = 0.99. While for 0.1% prevalence 0.140 tests per individual are expected, this improves to E = 0.139 for p = 0.2%. The explanation for such oscillatory pattern comes from the general implementation of A2’s expected number of tests per person in the binGroup package [64] where plausibility checks are done. As mentioned in Subsection 3.2.3 for Se,Sp < 1, in a scenario where a positive row/column group but not a single positive column/row group are found, individual tests of the positive row/column group should be performed. In a low prevalence setting, those additional tests have a higher impact and lead to the oscillation. As a side note, from a theoretical perspective, the oscillations in the expected number of tests per person for low prevalence do not contradict the theorem by Yao and Hwang [49] since the theorem concerns the minimum over all possible strategies and this one, even though can be a very good method for the current purposes, does not achieve the theoretical minimum.
Data Availability
For comparative visualization and querying of the precomputed results we provide an interactive web application. The source code for computation is open and freely available.