Rapid testing for improving uptake of HIV/AIDS services in people with HIV infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: The aim of our review is to assess effects of rapid HIV testing strategies on HIV screening outcomes: (i) uptake; (ii) transport and costs, (iii) tradeoffs/possible harmful effects/false positives compared to traditional laboratory testing approaches. HIV screening outcomes also include completion of risk reduction counselling, and uptake of ARV treatment for people living with HIV, including pregnant women, and other HIV/AIDS treatments to reduce morbidity and mortality. The specific objectives of this review are to: 1) critically review and synthesize effectiveness evidence on rapid compared to conventional laboratory HIV testing approaches for community and facility‐based testing. 2) conduct sensitivity analysis to explore the effect modifiers (e.g. location of testing, population, link to treatment etc.) on HIV testing and treatment outcomes. The populations that are considered at high risk for HIV infection include people from HIV concentrated epidemic countries, ethnic minority groups, Aboriginal peoples, men who have sex with men (MSM), intravenous drug users, truckers, factory workers and sex workers (UNAIDS 2011).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".