Volume 38, Issue 24
RESEARCH ARTICLE

The objective function controversy for group testing: Much ado about nothing?

Brianna D. Hitt

Corresponding Author

E-mail address: brianna.hitt@huskers.unl.edu

Department of Statistics, University of Nebraska‐Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska

Brianna D. Hitt, University of Nebraska‐Lincoln, Hardin Hall North 340, Lincoln, NE 68583.

Email: brianna.hitt@huskers.unl.edu

Search for more papers by this author
Christopher R. Bilder

Department of Statistics, University of Nebraska‐Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska

Search for more papers by this author
Joshua M. Tebbs

Department of Statistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina

Search for more papers by this author
Christopher S. McMahan

School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 30 August 2019
Citations: 4

Abstract

Group testing is an indispensable tool for laboratories when testing high volumes of clinical specimens for infectious diseases. An important decision that needs to be made prior to implementation is determining what group sizes to use. In best practice, an objective function is chosen and then minimized to determine an optimal set of these group sizes, known as the optimal testing configuration (OTC). There are a few options for objective functions, and they differ based on how the expected number of tests, assay characteristics, and testing constraints are taken into account. These varied options have led to a recent controversy in the literature regarding which of two different objective functions is better. In our paper, we examine these objective functions over a number of realistic situations for infectious disease testing. We show that this controversy may be much ado about nothing because the OTCs and corresponding results (eg, number of tests and accuracy) are largely the same for standard testing algorithms in a wide variety of situations.

Number of times cited according to CrossRef: 4

  • Pooled Testing for Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in Asymptomatic Individuals, Journal of Clinical Virology, 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104619, 132, (104619), (2020).
  • Specimen Pooling to Conserve Additional Testing Resources When Persons’ Infection Status Is Correlated, Epidemiology, 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001244, 31, 6, (832-835), (2020).
  • Assessment of Specimen Pooling to Conserve SARS CoV-2 Testing Resources, American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 10.1093/ajcp/aqaa064, (2020).
  • Pool Size Selection When Testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 10.1093/cid/ciaa774, (2020).

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.