Abstract
It has long been known that pooling samples may be used to minimize the total number of tests required in order to identify each infected individual in a population. Pooling is most advantageous in populations with low infection probability, but is expected to remain better than non-pooled testing in populations with an infection probability up to 30%. Additional testing efficiency may be realized by performing a second round of pooled testing, thus reducing the average number of tests required to uniquely identify each infected individual in a population with 1% infection from 20 to 14 out of 100, and from 6 to 4 when the infection probability is 0.1%. These best case predictions, obtained assuming perfect test accuracy and specificity, provide a quantitative measure of the optimal pool size and expected testing efficiency gains in populations with infection probabilities ranging from 0.1% to 30%, and are supported by recent COVID-19 empirical detection sensitivity and optimized pool size studies. Although large pools are most advantageous for testing populations with very low infection probabilities, they are predicted to become highly non-optimal with increasing infection probability, while pool sizes smaller than 10 remain near-optimal over a broader range of infection probabilities.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
NSF Grant Number CHE-109746
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
No IRB/oversight is required for this theoretical predictive study.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The associated Data may be obtained from the author, Dor Ben-Amotz (bendor@purdue.edu) or (dorbenamotz@gmail.com)