Back

Pre-procedural testing improves estimated COVID-19 prevalence and trends

PANG, G. C.; Hou, A. T.; Bayudan, K. L.; Frank, E. A.; Pastiglione, J.; Pang, L. W.

2022-04-18 infectious diseases
10.1101/2022.04.13.22273200 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundCOVID-19 positivity rates reported to the public may provide a distorted view of community trends because they tend to be inflated by high-risk groups, such as symptomatic patients and individuals with known exposures to COVID-19. This positive bias within high-risk groups has also varied over time, depending on testing capability and indications for being tested. In contrast, throughout the pandemic, routine COVID-19 screening tests for elective procedures and operations unrelated to COVID-19 risk have been administered by medical facilities to reduce transmission to medical staffing and other patients. We propose the use of these pre-procedural COVID-19 patient datasets to reduce biases in community trends and better understand local prevalence. MethodsUsing patient data from the Maui Medical Group clinic, we analyzed 12,640 COVID-19 test results from May 1, 2020 to March 16, 2021, divided into two time periods corresponding with Mauis outbreak. ResultsMean positivity rates were 0.1% for the pre-procedural group, 3.9% for the symptomatic group, 4.2% for the exposed group, and 2.0% for the total study population. Post-outbreak, the mean positivity rate of the pre-procedural group was significantly lower than the aggregate group (all other clinic groups combined). The positivity rates of both pre-procedural and aggregate groups increased over the study period, although the pre-procedural group showed a smaller rise in rate. ConclusionsPre-procedural groups may produce different trends compared to high-risk groups and are sufficiently robust to detect small changes in positivity rates. Considered in conjunction with high-risk groups, pre-procedural marker groups used to monitor understudied, low-risk subsets of a community may improve our understanding of community COVID-19 prevalence and trends.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.