Bayesian, Universal COVID Testing
Meyer, C.; Kralj, J.
Show abstract
During the SARS-COV2 pandemic, there has been a persistent call for universal testing to better inform policy decisions. However, a little considered aspect of this call is the relationship between a tests accuracy and the tested demographic. What are the implications of frequent, universal testing in otherwise asymptomatic demographics? By applying Bayesian statistics, it becomes clear that as the odds of having COVID decreases, there is a non-linear increase in the odds that each positive test is, in fact, a false positive. This phenomenon has precedence in the historical narrative surrounding universal mammogram screening which is no longer recommended due to the unacceptably high rate of false positives. The solution to combat the inflation of false positives is also suggested by Bayesian statistics: intelligently integrating multiple COVID diagnostic tests and symptoms via Bayes Theorem, an approach conceptually similar to pre-screening for mammograms. This extra information is readily available (e.g. olfactory function and fever) and will minimize the economic and emotional costs incurred by false positives while simultaneously improving the information available for policy-makers. In summary, along with the push for universal testing should be an equally rigorous approach to interpreting the test results.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Sample pooling methods for efficient pathogen screening: Practical implications 93%
- Identifying Optimal COVID-19 Testing Strategies for Schools and Businesses: Balancing Testing Frequency, Individual Test Technology, and Cost 93%
- Threshold analyses on rates of testing, transmission, and contact for COVID-19 control in a university setting 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Bayesian Structural Time Series for Biomedical Sensor Data: A Flexible Modeling Framework for Evaluating Interventions 93%
- Estimating cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 with imperfect serological tests: a cutoff-free approach 92%
- Predicting the causative pathogen among children with pneumonia using a causal Bayesian network 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Mitigating Machine Learning Bias Between High Income and Low-Middle Income Countries for Enhanced Model Fairness and Generalizability 92%
- On evaluation metrics for medical applications of artificial intelligence 92%
- Predictive values, uncertainty, and interpretation of serology tests for the novel coronavirus 91%
"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.