ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
Identifying the optimal rapid antigen test for screening and determining the end of isolation: A modeling study.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Identifying the optimal rapid antigen test for screening and determining the end of isolation: A modeling study.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, rapid antigen tests (RATs) were used to detect infections, improving the effectiveness of targeted non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). However, RATs based on either nasal swab or saliva samples were used, raising the question as to which type of RAT is most effective at detecting viral infections. Here, we develop a model-driven computational framework to assess different RATs and identify the most suitable test for a specified purpose, such as infection screening or determining the end of isolation, for various viral infections. Using symptomatic COVID-19 cases as a case study, we found that saliva-based RATs reduced transmission risk on average by 6.2% (95% CI: 6.1 - 6.3) compared to nasal-based RATs in the pre-symptomatic period. In addition, by ending isolation of infected individuals who have developed symptoms when consecutive RATs return negative results, the mean risk of transmission was reduced by 5.9% (95% CI: 5.7 - 6.1) using a saliva-based RAT compared to using a nasal-based RAT. These findings suggest that saliva RATs may be a useful option for mitigating SARS-CoV-2 transmission effectively. However, real-world variability in test sensitivity and sample collection should be carefully considered when evaluating the practical use of each RAT type. Our novel approach can be applied to other viruses and types of tests, enabling its use to inform public health policy decisions about which types of RAT to prioritize in future infectious disease epidemics.
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.