Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Modeling the effectiveness of olfactory testing to limit SARS-2-CoV transmission

View ORCID ProfileDaniel B. Larremore, View ORCID ProfileDerek Toomre, View ORCID ProfileRoy Parker
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.30.20241174
Daniel B. Larremore
1Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado Boulder
2BioFrontiers Institute, University of Colorado Boulder
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Daniel B. Larremore
  • For correspondence: daniel.larremore@colorado.edu derek.toomre@yale.edu roy.parker@colorado.edu
Derek Toomre
3Department of Cell Biology, Yale University School of Medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Derek Toomre
  • For correspondence: daniel.larremore@colorado.edu derek.toomre@yale.edu roy.parker@colorado.edu
Roy Parker
2BioFrontiers Institute, University of Colorado Boulder
4Department of Biochemistry, University of Colorado Boulder
5Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Roy Parker
  • For correspondence: daniel.larremore@colorado.edu derek.toomre@yale.edu roy.parker@colorado.edu
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

A central problem in the COVID-19 pandemic is that there is not enough testing to prevent infectious spread of SARS-CoV-2, causing surges and lockdowns with human and economic toll. Molecular tests that detect viral RNAs or antigens will be unable to rise to this challenge unless testing capacity increases by at least an order of magnitude while decreasing turnaround times. Here, we evaluate an alternative strategy based on the monitoring of olfactory dysfunction, a symptom identified in 76-83% of SARS-CoV-2 infections—including those that are otherwise asymptomatic—when a standardized olfaction test is used. We model how screening for olfactory dysfunction, with reflexive molecular tests, could be beneficial in reducing community spread of SARS-CoV-2 by varying testing frequency and the prevalence, duration, and onset time of olfactory dysfunction. We find that monitoring olfactory dysfunction could reduce spread via regular screening, and could reduce risk when used at point-of-entry for single-day events. In light of these estimated impacts, and because olfactory tests can be mass produced at low cost and self-administered, we suggest that screening for olfactory dysfunction could be a high impact and cost effective method for broad COVID-19 screening and surveillance.

Competing Interest Statement

D.B.L. is a member of the scientific advisory board of Darwin BioSciences. D.T. is a founder of an olfactory test company u-Smell-it LLC and has related pending patents.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (Roy Parker).

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:

N/A

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

All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper and/or the Supplementary Materials, and open-source code is available at the accompanying github.

https://github.com/LarremoreLab/covid_olfactory_dysfunction

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted December 02, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Modeling the effectiveness of olfactory testing to limit SARS-2-CoV transmission
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Modeling the effectiveness of olfactory testing to limit SARS-2-CoV transmission
Daniel B. Larremore, Derek Toomre, Roy Parker
medRxiv 2020.11.30.20241174; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.30.20241174
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Modeling the effectiveness of olfactory testing to limit SARS-2-CoV transmission
Daniel B. Larremore, Derek Toomre, Roy Parker
medRxiv 2020.11.30.20241174; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.30.20241174

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (269)
  • Allergy and Immunology (549)
  • Anesthesia (134)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1746)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (238)
  • Dermatology (172)
  • Emergency Medicine (310)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (651)
  • Epidemiology (10770)
  • Forensic Medicine (8)
  • Gastroenterology (582)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2930)
  • Geriatric Medicine (286)
  • Health Economics (531)
  • Health Informatics (1917)
  • Health Policy (832)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (741)
  • Hematology (290)
  • HIV/AIDS (627)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (12495)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (684)
  • Medical Education (299)
  • Medical Ethics (86)
  • Nephrology (319)
  • Neurology (2778)
  • Nursing (150)
  • Nutrition (431)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (553)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (596)
  • Oncology (1451)
  • Ophthalmology (440)
  • Orthopedics (172)
  • Otolaryngology (254)
  • Pain Medicine (190)
  • Palliative Medicine (56)
  • Pathology (378)
  • Pediatrics (863)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (361)
  • Primary Care Research (333)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2626)
  • Public and Global Health (5336)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1001)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (592)
  • Respiratory Medicine (721)
  • Rheumatology (329)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (288)
  • Sports Medicine (278)
  • Surgery (327)
  • Toxicology (47)
  • Transplantation (149)
  • Urology (124)