Accuracy and Acceptability of Oral Fluid HIV Self-Testing in a General Adult Population in Kenya
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated performance, accuracy, and acceptability parameters of unsupervised oral fluid (OF) HIV self-testing (HIVST) in a general population in western Kenya. In a prospective validation design, we enrolled 240 adults to perform rapid OF HIVST and compared results to staff administered OF and rapid fingerstick tests. All reactive, discrepant, and a proportion of negative results were confirmed with lab ELISA. Twenty participants were video-recorded conducting self-testing. All participants completed a staff administered survey before and after HIVST to assess attitudes towards OF HIVST acceptability. HIV prevalence was 14.6 %. Thirty-six of the 239 HIVSTs were invalid (15.1 %; 95 % CI 11.1-20.1 %), with males twice as likely to have invalid results as females. HIVST sensitivity was 89.7 % (95 % CI 73-98 %) and specificity was 98 % (95 % CI 89-99 %). Although sensitivity was somewhat lower than expected, there is clear interest in, and high acceptability (94 %) of OF HIV self-testing.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it