{"id":4334,"date":"2021-01-26T06:33:55","date_gmt":"2021-01-26T06:33:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aiproblog.com\/index.php\/2021\/01\/26\/clearing-up-the-covid-19-test-accuracy-debate-with-data-science\/"},"modified":"2021-01-26T06:33:55","modified_gmt":"2021-01-26T06:33:55","slug":"clearing-up-the-covid-19-test-accuracy-debate-with-data-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aiproblog.com\/index.php\/2021\/01\/26\/clearing-up-the-covid-19-test-accuracy-debate-with-data-science\/","title":{"rendered":"Clearing up the Covid-19 Test Accuracy Debate with Data Science"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Author: Stephanie Glen<\/p>\n<div>\n<ul>\n<li>A negative Covid-19 test result had very little meaning in 2020.<\/li>\n<li>A new tool allows you to better interpret the meaning of a negative test result.<\/li>\n<li>I used the tool to find the probability that my October Covid-19 negative test result was accurate.<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>This useful, user-friendly tool is a great example of data science at work.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/storage.ning.com\/topology\/rest\/1.0\/file\/get\/8477710098?profile=original\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/storage.ning.com\/topology\/rest\/1.0\/file\/get\/8477710098?profile=RESIZE_710x\" class=\"align-center\"><\/a>Last October, my entire household came down with a nasty cold and cough. I was laid out flat on the couch for a couple of days and went for a Covid-19 test on day 4. Thankfully the test came back negative and I breathed a sigh of relief. As soon as I felt better I went on my merry way, confident that the test was highly accurate. I was wrong.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><strong>Is Your Negative Covid-19 Result\u00a0 Accurate?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>So, how accurate is a Covid-19 test? According to the FDA [1], &#8220;<span>No test is 100% accurate all of the time&#8221;, leading one to (incorrectly) believe that the test is close enough to 100%&#8211;perhaps 98 or 99%. The fact is&#8211;you can&#8217;t trust a negative result at <em>all<\/em>.\u00a0According to Robert H. Shmerling, MD, Senior Faculty Editor for Harvard Health Publishing [2] &#8220;the true accuracy of tests for COVID-19 is uncertain.&#8221; There are many reasons for this, including the newness of the virus, a lack of reported accuracy data, and timing of the test in relation to symptoms.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>There are stories abound of people who tested negative only to find out they actually should have tested positive. One 34-year-old man with Covid-19 who<\/span>\u00a0tested negative <em>four times<\/em> before finally testing positive.\u00a0Many experts suggest that anyone with symptoms should assume they are infected [3]. This makes one wonder about the usefulness of getting a test at all: why bother with the expense and time if you should self-quarantine anyway?\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><strong>Calculating a Probability for &#8220;Uncertain&#8221; Results\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>As a statistician, I find it difficult to accept &#8220;we don&#8217;t know&#8221; as an answer. Given enough data, one should be able to ascertain a probability for anything&#8211;even if the result is a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.statisticshowto.com\/probability-and-statistics\/confidence-interval\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">confidence interval<\/a>\u00a0[no term] wider than the Grand Canyon. Given that there were over 100,000 published articles on the coronavirus in 2020, one would think that there was enough data to calculate a few probabilities.\u00a0 A recent tool published by Jara et al. did just that, creating a user-friendly tool that predicts the probability your negative result was actually correct. The tool is based heavily\u00a0on the\u00a0work of Kucirka et al. [5], which\u00a0estimated the false-negative rate by day since infection. The tool creators then\u00a0adjusted a hierarchical logistic model to estimate the false\u00a0negative rates based on days since the onset of symptoms (hierarchical models group data into distinct levels&#8211;in this case, days since onset). Then the authors\u00a0generated a <a href=\"https:\/\/whatis.techtarget.com\/definition\/Markov-model\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Markov chain<\/a>\u00a0of 420,000 samples, discarding the first 20,000 and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.statisticshowto.com\/resampling-techniques\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">resampling<\/a>\u00a0[no term] the remainder to generate a 20,000 point sub-chain.<\/p>\n<p><strong>What was the Probability my Result Was Truly Negative?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>I used the tool to find the probability that my October Covid-19 negative test result was accurate.<\/p>\n<p>To use the tool, select one, two or three tests from the top tabs. For me, that was one test. Next, plug in your estimated probability of having Covid-19. I had all of the symptoms, so I estimated it was 50\/50 (either Covid or a common cold). Next, set the slider at the number of days from first symptoms until the test. For me, that was 4. Here is the graphic for my results:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/storage.ning.com\/topology\/rest\/1.0\/file\/get\/8476699890?profile=original\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/storage.ning.com\/topology\/rest\/1.0\/file\/get\/8476699890?profile=RESIZE_710x\" class=\"align-full\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p>According to the chart, I had a roughly 20% chance of having Covid-19, despite having a negative test.<\/p>\n<p>This tool makes it easier to have confidence in what your Covid-19 test results mean in terms of probability. This is a fascinating use of data to create a very understandable tool. This is what data science is all about&#8211;taking uncertainty and confusion and turning it into a very user-friendly tool that can be used and understood by everyone.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>References<\/p>\n<p>[1]\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.fda.gov\/consumers\/consumer-updates\/coronavirus-disease-2019-testing-basics\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Coronavirus Disease 2019 Testing Basics<\/a><\/p>\n<p>[2] <a href=\"https:\/\/www.health.harvard.edu\/blog\/which-test-is-best-for-covid-19-2020081020734\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Which test is best for COVID-19?<\/a><\/p>\n<p>[3]\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/medical.mit.edu\/covid-19-updates\/2020\/06\/how-accurate-diagnostic-tests-covid-19\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">How accurate are the laboratory tests used to diagnose COVID-19?<\/a><\/p>\n<p>[4] Alejandro Jara,\u00a0Eduardo A. Undurraga, Rafael Araos (Preprint, 2021).Tool for estimating the probability of having COVID-19 with one or more\u00a0negative RT-PCR results. <a href=\"https:\/\/midas-uc.shinyapps.io\/Calculadora-COVID19\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Tool available here.<\/a><\/p>\n<p>[5]\u00a09. Kucirka LM, Lauer SA, Laeyendecker O, Boon D, Lessler J. Variation in false-negative rate of reverse<br \/> transcriptase polymerase chain reaction\u2013based SARS-CoV-2 tests by time since exposure. Ann Intern Med.<br \/> 2020.<\/p>\n<p>Covid19 test kit image:\u00a0Secretaria Especial de Sa\u00fade Ind\u00edgena (Sesai), CC BY-SA 2.0 &lt;<a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-sa\/2.0%3E\">https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-sa\/2.0&gt;<\/a>;, via Wikimedia Commons<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.datasciencecentral.com\/xn\/detail\/6448529:BlogPost:1013040\">Go to Source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Author: Stephanie Glen A negative Covid-19 test result had very little meaning in 2020. A new tool allows you to better interpret the meaning of [&hellip;] <span class=\"read-more-link\"><a class=\"read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/www.aiproblog.com\/index.php\/2021\/01\/26\/clearing-up-the-covid-19-test-accuracy-debate-with-data-science\/\">Read More<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":472,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aiproblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4334"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aiproblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aiproblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aiproblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aiproblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4334"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.aiproblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4334\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aiproblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/474"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aiproblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4334"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aiproblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4334"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aiproblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4334"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}