Department of Biology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Department of Applied Mathematics, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2023 Feb 13;18(2):e0281710. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281710. eCollection 2023.
Testing remains a key tool for managing health care and making health policy during the coronavirus pandemic, and it will probably be important in future pandemics. Because of false negative and false positive tests, the observed fraction of positive tests-the surface positivity-is generally different from the fraction of infected individuals (the incidence rate of the disease). In this paper a previous method for translating surface positivity to a point estimate for incidence rate, then to an appropriate range of values for the incidence rate consistent with the model and data (the test range), and finally to the risk (the probability of including one infected individual) associated with groups of different sizes is illustrated. The method is then extended to include asymptomatic infections. To do so, the process of testing is modeled using both analysis and Monte Carlo simulation. Doing so shows that it is possible to determine point estimates for the fraction of infected and symptomatic individuals, the fraction of uninfected and symptomatic individuals, and the ratio of infected asymptomatic individuals to infected symptomatic individuals. Inclusion of symptom status generalizes the test range from an interval to a region in the plane determined by the incidence rate and the ratio of asymptomatic to symptomatic infections; likelihood methods can be used to determine the contour of the rest region. Points on this contour can be used to compute the risk (defined as the probability of including one asymptomatic infected individual) in groups of different sizes. These results have operational implications that include: positivity rate is not incidence rate; symptom status at testing can provide valuable information about asymptomatic infections; collecting information on time since putative virus exposure at testing is valuable for determining point estimates and test ranges; risk is a graded (rather than binary) function of group size; and because the information provided by testing becomes more accurate with more tests but at a decreasing rate, it is possible to over-test fixed spatial regions. The paper concludes with limitations of the method and directions for future work.
在冠状病毒大流行期间,检测仍然是管理医疗保健和制定卫生政策的重要工具,在未来的大流行中也可能很重要。由于假阴性和假阳性检测,观察到的阳性检测比例(表面阳性率)通常与感染个体的比例(疾病的发病率)不同。在本文中,我们介绍了一种将表面阳性率转换为发病率点估计值,然后转换为与模型和数据一致的发病率适当范围值(测试范围),最后转换为与不同大小群体相关的风险(包括一个感染个体的概率)的方法。然后,该方法扩展到包括无症状感染。为此,使用分析和蒙特卡罗模拟对测试过程进行建模。这样做表明,可以确定感染和有症状个体的比例、未感染和有症状个体的比例以及感染无症状个体与感染有症状个体的比例的点估计值。包括症状状态将测试范围从区间推广到由发病率和无症状与有症状感染的比率确定的平面区域;似然方法可用于确定其余区域的轮廓。该轮廓上的点可用于计算不同大小群体的风险(定义为包含一个无症状感染个体的概率)。这些结果具有操作意义,包括:阳性率不是发病率;测试时的症状状态可以提供有关无症状感染的有价值信息;在测试时收集有关假定病毒暴露时间的信息对于确定点估计值和测试范围很有价值;风险是群体大小的分级(而不是二元)函数;由于随着测试次数的增加,测试提供的信息变得更加准确,但增加的速度越来越慢,因此可能过度测试固定的空间区域。本文最后讨论了该方法的局限性和未来工作的方向。