Abstract
Background Pooling is a popular strategy for increasing SARS-CoV-2 testing throughput. A common pooling scheme is Dorfman pooling: test N individuals simultaneously. If the first test is positive — retest each individual.
Methods Using a probabilistic model, we analyze the false-negative rate (i.e., the probability of a negative result for an infected individual) of Dorfman pooling. Our model is conservative in that it ignores sample dilution effects, which can only worsen pooling performance.
Results We show that one can expect a 60-80% increase in false-negative rates under Dorfman pooling, for reasonable parameter values. Moreover, we show that the false-negative rates under Dorfman pooling increase when the prevalence of infection decreases.
Discussion In most pooling schemes, identifying an infected individual requires positive results in multiple tests and hence substantially deteriorates false-negative rates. Furthermore, this phenomenon is more pronounced when infection prevalence is low — exactly when pooling is most efficient. Thus, pooling presents an inherent trade-off: it is most efficient when it is least accurate. The deterioration of false-negative rates and the aforementioned trade-off are inherent problems of pooling schemes and should be kept in mind by practitioners and policy makers.
1 Introduction
RT-PCR testing is a key component in breaking transmission chains and mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, the need for large-scale testing has resulted in development of pooling schemes of RT-PCR tests [1, 4, 5, 7, 8]. One such popular scheme is Dorfman pooling [1, 3]: Select N individuals and perform a single RT-PCR test on their combined (“pooled”) samples. If the pooled test yields a positive result — test each individual separately. The throughput efficiency of Dorfman pooling has been demonstrated empirically [1]. However, when test error rates are taken into consideration, a sharp increase in false-negative rates can be expected.
It is important to distinguish three types of false-negative events when performing pooling. For convenience, we follow a single infected individual, henceforth referred to as “Donald”. A single test’s false-negative is the event of a negative result upon testing Donald separately, i.e., in an RT-PCR test without pooling. The probability of such an event is denoted Pfn. A pooled false-negative occurs when a pooled test containing Donald’s sample (and other samples) yields a negative result, i.e., the pooling fails to detect at least one positive result. Lastly, a scheme false-negative results occurs when an entire pooling scheme fails to identify Donald as infected. Our goal is to calculate Dorfman’s scheme false-negative rate. Or: what is the probability of Dorfman pooling not identifying Donald as infected?
2 Methods
2.1 Probabilistic Assumptions
We assume two pathways for a positive pooled test result: Viral RNA from an infected individual is correctly detected; or, some erroneous detection occurs (e.g. contaminant viral RNA is introduced). We ignore cross-reactivity with other Coronaviruses, which is negligible [11]. We assume a homogeneous and disconnected population (each individual is infected independently and with equal probability). For simplicity, we do not take into account sample dilution, since it can only further increase false-negative rates [1].
2.2 Calculation of Dorfman’s scheme false-negative rate
Denote the prevalence of infection in the (tested) population q. As before, Pfn denotes the single RT-PCR test’s false-negative rate. We also denote Pfp the probability of an erroneous RNA detection, which may cause a false-positive. By our assumptions, a pool containing Donald’s sample and N − 1 other samples will yield a negative result if all of the following occur:
No erroneous detection occurred (i.e. no false-positive). This happens with probability 1 − Pfp.
The detection process fails for Donald’s sample. A false-negative occurs, with probability Pfn.
No detection for any of the other N − 1 samples. For a single sample, the probability of being detected is the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the tested population q, multiplied by the true-positive rate. But the true-positive rate is the complement of Pfn, namely 1 − Pfn, hence the probability of detection is q(1 − Pfn). For N − 1 such samples, the probability of not being identified is (1 − q(1 − Pfn))N−1.
The pooled false-negative probability for Donald is simply the product of the terms above. Hence:
If the pooled test yields a positive result, Donald is tested separately. We assume such a simple procedure poses no risk of introducing contaminant RNA. Therefore, the separate test yields a positive result with probability 1 − Pfn.
We calculate the probability that Donald is mistakenly identified as not infected — the scheme’s false-negative rate — denoted Psfn below. To correctly identify Donald as infected, both pooled and separate tests have to yield a positive result. Thus, the scheme’s false-negative rate Psfn is the complement of the product of the two previous terms:
2.3 Comparison metric
The single test false-negative Pfn and scheme false-negative rate Psfn are compared via:
Erel is the percentage increase in the pooling scheme false-negative rate, relative to the single test false-negative rate.
3 Results
We plot Erel for varying prevalence q and false-negative Pfn values. As recommended by [1], we apply different pool sizes N, for different prevalence values. We observe that for a false-positive rate Pfp = 0.05 [1] and a range of reasonable false-negative and prevalence values [10–13], an increase of at least 60% in Erel can be expected (Figure 1). Interestingly, an increase in infection prevalence monotonically decreases the scheme false-negative rate, as can also be easily seen from equation (2). For the chosen parameter ranges, the increase in the single test false-negative rates increases the relative error Erel. These effects can be seen in Figure 1, upon conditioning on pool size. Finally, extending the range for Pfp yields no qualitative differences.
Relative increase in Dorfman pooling false-negative rates Erel. Color represents the relative percentage increase in the scheme false-negative rates relative to the single test false-negative rates, Pfn. The disease prevalence, q, is varied on the x-axis, while the single test false-negative rate is varied on the y-axis. Note that Pool size, N, was chosen according to q as in [1].
4 Discussion
Although Dorfman pooling improves testing throughput, we have shown that it can increase Erel — the false-negative rates relative to individual testing. Furthermore, low values of infection prevalence, or low values of single test false-negative rates, increase Erel. These results remain qualitatively similar under varying parameter values, in the observed ranges [6, 10–12] (Figure 1).
Our results lead to a fact almost disregarded in [1]: although (Dorfman) pooling is most efficient when prevalence is low, such circumstances are exactly those leading to a substantial increase in false-negative rates.
An approximation to our results has been previously considered: Psfn ≈ 1 − (1 − Pfn)2 [2, 9]. Such an approximation arises when one assumes that the probability of a false-negative is identical for the pooled and single tests. Although simplistic in nature, this approximation does capture the intuition behind our results: For Donald to be considered negative under Dorfman pooling, he has to test negative twice. In addition to this approximation only being an upper bound [2], it does not account for the effect of infection prevalence on the false-negative rates under Dorfman pooling. Supporting the importance of this effect, such an association between prevalence and the scheme false-negative rate under Dorfman pooling has been empirically noted [1].
Although we have shown the inherent risk of Dorfman pooling, this short-coming applies to other pooling schemes. Pooling schemes (e.g. [4, 14]), require some sequence of positive pooled results to correctly identify Donald as infected. Consider the pooling scheme of [14]: If the first pool yields a positive result, it is split in two. Then the splitting is repeated until resulting pools are negative or individuals are tested separately. With an initial pool size of 32, Donald will necessarily have to test positive in pools of size 32, 16, 8, 4 and 2, as well as in a single test, for the scheme to correctly identify him as infected. Compare this to the Dorfman scheme that requires a positive test in a pool of size N = 8, and an additional single positive test to identify Donald as infected. The pooling scheme of [14] will necessarily yield more false-negatives than Dorfman pooling — there are additional places for it to fail.
As mentioned in [1], introducing a positive dependence within a pool decreases the false-positive rate. In the extreme case, consider a fully connected pool, where one infection implies the entire pool is infected. In this case, a calculation analogous to the one conducted above recovers the initial false-negative rate Pfn. Interestingly, pooling was also noted to have increased throughput when infection probabilities are dependent between the pooled individuals [1], providing another advantage to sampling dependent individuals in pooling schemes.
To conclude, pooling is an important technique which can improve testing throughput in a cost-effective manner. Nevertheless, a substantial deterioration in pooling schemes’ false-negative rates can be expected. Such a deterioration has crucial implications for controlling the spread of COVID-19.
Data Availability
No data was used in the manuscript.
Footnotes
Modified manuscript to refer to some papers and emphasize the trade-off between false-negative and efficiency.
