Paper detail

Error Correction Codes for COVID-19 Virus and Antibody Testing: Using Pooled Testing to Increase Test Reliability

We consider a novel method to increase the reliability of COVID-19 virus or antibody tests by using specially designed pooled testings. Instead of testing nasal swab or blood samples from individual persons, we propose to test mixtures of samples from many individuals. The pooled sample testing method proposed in this paper also serves a different purpose: for increasing test reliability and providing accurate diagnoses even if the tests themselves are not very accurate. Our method uses ideas from compressed sensing and error-correction coding to correct for a certain number of errors in the test results. The intuition is that when each individual's sample is part of many pooled sample mixtures, the test results from all of the sample mixtures contain redundant information about each individual's diagnosis, which can be exploited to automatically correct for wrong test results in exactly the same way that error correction codes correct errors introduced in noisy communication channels. While such redundancy can also be achieved by simply testing each individual's sample multiple times, we present simulations and theoretical arguments that show that our method is significantly more efficient in increasing diagnostic accuracy. In contrast to group testing and compressed sensing which aim to reduce the number of required tests, this proposed error correction code idea purposefully uses pooled testing to increase test accuracy, and works not only in the "undersampling" regime, but also in the "oversampling" regime, where the number of tests is bigger than the number of subjects. The results in this paper run against traditional beliefs that, "even though pooled testing increased test capacity, pooled testings were less reliable than testing individuals separately."

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.