Back

Optimal Pool Size for COVID-19 Group Testing

Chen, J. Y.; Chen, A. S. C.

2020-07-06 health informatics
10.1101/2020.04.26.20076265 medRxiv
Show abstract

This paper presents an analytical formulation for determining optimal pool size in the initial pooling stage and the subsequent retests for COVID-19. A generalized constant compaction approach confirms the efficiency of "halving" targeted population between retest stages. An analytical gain formula is derived to aid future test designs. It is observed that optimal gain relies on the proper choice of the initial pool size. This optimal compaction scheme outperforms the conventional algorithms in most cases and may provide a mathematically-native road map for us to operate beyond the standard super-even-number-based (64, 32, 16, 8..., 1) group testing algorithms.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 5%
30.4%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
19.7%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
3
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
● 37 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.9%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Frontiers in Neuroscience
○ 256 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.3%
Similar papers in this journal
5
BMC Bioinformatics
○ 457 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.5%
Similar papers in this journal
6
BMC Medical Genomics
○ 50 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.3%
7
Annals of Internal Medicine
● 28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
8
Applied Sciences
○ 25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
9
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 22%
1.4%
10
Mathematics
○ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
11
Royal Society Open Science
● 214 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
12
Informatics in Medicine Unlocked
○ 22 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
13
BioMed Research International
○ 28 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
14
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
○ 43 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
15
Frontiers in Public Health
○ 148 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
16
Biostatistics
◐ 24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
17
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.7%
18
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
○ 98 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
19
Frontiers in Medicine
○ 120 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
20
IEEE Access
● 35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
21
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
◐ 45 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
Biosystems
○ 31 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
23
Sensors
○ 43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
24
ACS Synthetic Biology
● 287 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
25
Heliyon
○ 152 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.5%
26
Bioinformatics Advances
◐ 203 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
27
Expert Systems with Applications
○ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
28
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
○ 32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
29
Mathematical Biosciences
○ 49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
30
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
● 130 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.