Pool Testing as a Strategy for Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 Outbreaks in Schools: Protocol for a Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: School closures are a widely implemented strategy for limiting infection spread in the current COVID-19 pandemic. The negative impact of school closures on children and young people is increasingly apparent, however. OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate the feasibility of an infection monitoring program in schools to enable targeted quarantining to replace school closures. The program is currently being implemented in two model schools in Magdeburg, Germany, within the framework of the Study of Coronavirus Outbreak Prevention in Magdeburg Schools (Studie zur Ausbruchsvermeidung von Corona an Magdeburger Schulen [STACAMA]). METHODS: Five pupils per class are pseudorandomly selected twice a week and asked to provide a gargle sample over a 16-week evaluation period. RNA is extracted from each sample individually in a laboratory and pooled according to school class for real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) analysis. Immediate individual sample testing will be carried out in the case of a positive pool test. Individual RNA extraction prior to pooling and application of rRT-PCR result in high test sensitivity. Testing will be performed in strict adherence to data protection standards. All participating pupils will receive a 16-digit study code, which they will be able to use to access their test. RESULTS: When the study commenced on December 2, 2020, 520 (52%) pupils and their families or guardians had consented to study participation. The study was suspended after four test rounds due to renewed school closures resulting from rising regional infection incidence. Testing resumed when schools reopened on March 8, 2021, at which time consent to participation was provided for 54% of pupils. We will quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the logistics and acceptability of the program. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study should inform the design of infection surveillance programs in schools based on gargle samples and a PCR-based pool testing procedure, enabling the identification of aspects that may require adaptation before large-scale implementation. Our focus on each step of the logistics and on the experiences of families should enable a robust assessment of the feasibility of such an approach. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/28673.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".