ArticleScientific reports2022
Identification-detection group testing protocols for COVID-19 at high prevalence.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Group testing allows saving chemical reagents, analysis time, and costs, by testing pools of samples instead of individual samples. We introduce a class of group testing protocols with small dilution, suited to operate even at high prevalence (5-10[Formula: see text]), and maximizing the fraction of samples classified positive/negative within the first round of tests. Precisely, if the tested group has exactly one positive sample then the protocols identify it without further individual tests. The protocols also detect the presence of two or more positives in the group, in which case a second round could be applied to identify the positive individuals. With a prevalence of [Formula: see text] and maximum dilution 6, with 100 tests we classify 242 individuals, [Formula: see text] of them in one round and [Formula: see text] requiring a second individual test. In comparison, the Dorfman's scheme can test 229 individuals with 100 tests, with a second round for [Formula: see text] of the individuals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.