Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35383149›Full record

ArticleNature communications2022

Group testing via hypergraph factorization applied to COVID-19.

David Hong, Rounak Dey, Xihong Lin, Brian Cleary, Edgar Dobriban

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Constructions and Comparisons of Pooling Matrices for Pooled Testing of COVID-19.IEEE transactions on network science and engineering · 2022
    Article
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

5 authors.

David HongDepartment of Statistics and Data Science, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4698-4175
Rounak DeyDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6540-8280
Xihong LinDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. xlin@hsph.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-7067-7752
Brian ClearyBroad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, 02142, USA. bcleary@broadinstitute.org.ORCID 0000-0003-0825-7129
Edgar DobribanDepartment of Statistics and Data Science, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. dobriban@wharton.upenn.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large scale screening is a critical tool in the life sciences, but is often limited by reagents, samples, or cost. An important recent example is the challenge of achieving widespread COVID-19 testing in the face of substantial resource constraints. To tackle this challenge, screening methods must efficiently use testing resources. However, given the global nature of the pandemic, they must also be simple (to aid implementation) and flexible (to be tailored for each setting). Here we propose HYPER, a group testing method based on hypergraph factorization. We provide theoretical characterizations under a general statistical model, and carefully evaluate HYPER with alternatives proposed for COVID-19 under realistic simulations of epidemic spread and viral kinetics. We find that HYPER matches or outperforms the alternatives across a broad range of testing-constrained environments, while also being simpler and more flexible. We provide an online tool to aid lab implementation: http://hyper.covid19-analysis.org .

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 TestingHumansMass ScreeningPandemicsSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID35383149
PMCPMC8983763

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.