Previously submitted to: JMIR Formative Research (no longer under consideration since Jul 13, 2022)
Date Submitted: Jun 6, 2022
Open Peer Review Period: Jun 6, 2022 - Jun 20, 2022
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint
Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).
Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.
Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).
Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.
Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.
Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
A New Software Accessory to the Rapid Antigen Test
ABSTRACT
Background:
The registration of unsupervised Lateral Flow Test results poses concerns and has not yet been addressed, so the reader should bear with me as this manuscript is of a new category. One reliable reporting method currently being employed in an unsupervised scenario involves a medic reading off the remote candidate’s scanned test device. A common variant of this method entails a medic supervising the test in live video. However, these methods are only used because in those cases, there are many medics compared to the number of candidates. They would not be applicable in the adverse scenario where there are too many candidates compared to available medics, such that any form of supervision is infeasible. Again, I emphasise that I have not encountered any previous research on this matter that I can refer to here. However, I came to these observations after carefully exploring the various commercial products on the market Scanning or video solutions require a high number of available medics to open thousands of emails or be present on video. Imagine a pandemic scenario where urgent mass evacuation and isolation is necessary. A comparable scenario is the familiar back-to-office scheme, which many of us have been a part of. I observed that some candidates simply did not even use the kits, but instead, just reported negative, which was the desired result. This is because it was easy to cheat and there was no mechanism to catch or discourage this.
Objective:
This problem has not yet been addressed in previous papers, and is the subject of this paper. Here, I suggest a feasible solution to cheating in the registration following an unsupervised test. I also provide a working prototype which is re-usable for future pandemics of this nature.
Methods:
Ad-hoc Mathematical analysis Computer programming
Results:
The computer prototype I created as a complement to this paper and is available on my github repository. This solution becomes very obvious once the problem is introduced to the keen mind, and I believe that breaking it down any further would result in the paper being unnecessarily too long. The reader can immediately infer the following: The program shows that a cheating candidate would only have to guess in order to register their fake results If three groups of test strips are produced and shipped in equal numbers, the cheat would register a valid result at a success rate of at least 0.33. This is as a result of simple probability. This can be tested by running the program This would discourage cheating, because the cheat would rather perform the test and report feasible results than attempt to cheat and be caught, wasting their own time This solution should be applicable to any such unsupervised test, so it is re-usable for future pandemics of this nature.
Conclusions:
The way in which unsupervised Rapid Antigen Tests are registered is a major concern. This paper suggests one feasible solution. The computer prototype I created as a complement to this paper and is available on my github repository. Clinical Trial: https://github.com/Donald-Besong/Covid_Test_Reporting
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.