Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34466761›Full record

ArticleInfectious Disease Modelling2021

Modelling the utility of group testing for public health surveillance.

Günther Koliander, Georg Pichler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infectious Disease Modelling, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Günther KolianderAcoustics Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Wohllebengasse 12-14, 1040, Vienna, Austria.
Georg PichlerInstitute of Telecommunications, TU Wien, Gußhausstraße 25/E389, 1040, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In epidemic or pandemic situations, resources for testing the infection status of individuals may be scarce. Although group testing can help to significantly increase testing capabilities, the (repeated) testing of entire populations can exceed the resources of any country. We thus propose an extension of the theory of group testing that takes into account the fact that definitely specifying the infection status of each individual is impossible. Our theory builds on assigning to each individual an infection status (healthy/infected), as well as an associated cost function for erroneous assignments. This cost function is versatile, e.g., it could take into account that false negative assignments are worse than false positive assignments and that false assignments in critical areas, such as health care workers, are more severe than in the general population. Based on this model, we study the optimal use of a limited number of tests to minimize the expected cost. More specifically, we utilize information-theoretic methods to give a lower bound on the expected cost and describe simple strategies that can significantly reduce the expected cost over currently known strategies. A detailed example is provided to illustrate our theory.

Indexed as

Group testingPublic health surveillanceRate-distortion theorySource coding

Identifiers

PMID34466761
PMCPMC8379637

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.