Group Testing with Homophily to Curb Epidemics with Asymptomatic Carriers
de Belleville, L.-M. H.
Show abstract
Contagion happens through heterogeneous interpersonal relations (homophily) which induce contamination clusters. Group testing is increasingly recognized as necessary to fight the asymptomatic transmission of the COVID-19. Still, it is plagued by false negatives. Homophily can be taken into account to design test pools that encompass potential contamination clusters. I show that this makes it possible to overcome the usual information-theoretic limits of group testing, which are based on an implicit homogeneity assumption. Even more interestingly, a multiple-step testing strategy combining this approach with advanced complementary exams for all individuals in pools identified as positive identifies asymptomatic carriers who would be missed even by costly exhaustive individual tests. Recent advances in group testing have brought large gains in efficiency, but within the bounds of the above cited information-theoretic limits, and without tackling the false negatives issue which is crucial for COVID-19. Homophily has been considered in the contagion literature already, but not in order to improve group testing.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Regular testing of asymptomatic healthcare workers identifies cost-efficient SARS-CoV-2 preventive measures 94%
- Screening plans for SARS-CoV-2 based on sampling and rotation: an example in the school setting 93%
- Estimating the impact of interventions against COVID-19: from lockdown to vaccination 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- A model for COVID-19 with isolation, quarantine and testing as control measures 94%
- Enhanced testing can substantially improve defence against several types of respiratory virus pandemic 94%
- Limited impact of contact tracing in a University setting for COVID-19 due to asymptomatic transmission and social distancing 94%
"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.