Search for: All records

Testing multiple subjects within a group, with a single test applied to the group (i.e., group testing), is an important tool for classifying populations as positive or negative for a specific binary characteristic in an efficient manner. We study the design of easily implementable, static group testing schemes that take into account operational constraints, heterogeneous populations, and uncertainty in subject risk, while considering classification accuracy- and robustness-based objectives. We derive key structural properties of optimal risk-based designs and show that the problem can be formulated as network flow problems. Our reformulation involves computationally expensive high-dimensional integrals. We develop an analytical expression that eliminates the need to compute high-dimensional integrals, drastically improving the tractability of constructing the underlying network. We demonstrate the impact through a case study on chlamydia screening, which leads to the following insights: (1) Risk-based designs are shown to be less expensive, more accurate, and more robust than current practices. (2) The performance of static risk-based schemes comprised of only two group sizes is comparable to those comprised of many group sizes. (3) Static risk-based schemes are an effective alternative to more complicated dynamic schemes. (4) An expectation-based formulation captures almost all benefits of a static risk-based scheme. 

Limited testing capacity for COVID-19 has hampered the pandemic response. Pooling is a testing method wherein samples from specimens (e.g., swabs) from multiple subjects are combined into a pool and screened with a single test. If the pool tests positive, then new samples from the collected specimens are individually tested, while if the pool tests negative, the subjects are classified as negative for the disease. Pooling can substantially expand COVID-19 testing capacity and throughput, without requiring additional resources. We develop a mathematical model to determine the best pool size for different risk groups , based on each group’s estimated COVID-19 prevalence. Our approach takes into consideration the sensitivity and specificity of the test, and a dynamic and uncertain prevalence, and provides a robust pool size for each group. For practical relevance, we also develop a companion COVID-19 pooling design tool (through a spread sheet). To demonstrate the potential value of pooling, we study COVID-19 screening using testing data from Iceland for the period, February-28-2020 to June-14-2020, for subjects stratified into high- and low-risk groups. We implement the robust pooling strategy within a sequential framework, which updates pool sizes each week, for each risk group, based on prior week’s testing data. Robust pooling reduces the number of tests, over individual testing, by 88.5% to 90.2%, and 54.2% to 61.9%, respectively, for the low-risk and high-risk groups (based on test sensitivity values in the range [0.71, 0.98] as reported in the literature). This results in much shorter times, on average, to get the test results compared to individual testing (due to the higher testing throughput), and also allows for expanded screening to cover more individuals. Thus, robust pooling can potentially be a valuable strategy for COVID-19 screening. 

Abstract Testing provides essential information for managing infectious disease outbreaks, such as the COVID‐19 pandemic. When testing resources are scarce, an important managerial decision is who to test. This decision is compounded by the fact that potential testing subjects are heterogeneous in multiple dimensions that are important to consider, including their likelihood of being disease‐positive, and how much potential harm would be averted through testing and the subsequent interventions. To increase testing coverage, pooled testing can be utilized, but this comes at a cost of increased false‐negatives when the test is imperfect. Then, the decision problem is to partition the heterogeneous testing population into three mutually exclusive sets: those to be individually tested, those to be pool tested, and those not to be tested. Additionally, the subjects to be pool tested must be further partitioned into testing pools, potentially containing different numbers of subjects. The objectives include the minimization of harm (through detection and mitigation) or maximization of testing coverage. We develop data‐driven optimization models and algorithms to design pooled testing strategies, and show, via a COVID‐19 contact tracing case study, that the proposed testing strategies can substantially outperform the current practice used for COVID‐19 contact tracing (individually testing those contacts with symptoms). Our results demonstrate the substantial benefits of optimizing the testing design, while considering the multiple dimensions of population heterogeneity and the limited testing capacity.