MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1893903021 · doi:10.2174/1874613601004010176

Detection of Early Sero-Conversion HIV Infection Using the INSTI HIV-1 Antibody Point-of-Care Test

2010· article· en· W1893903021 on OpenAlexaff
Darrel Cook, Mark Gilbert, Lillo DiFrancesco, Mel Krajden

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open AIDS Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Centre for Disease Control
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)HIV screeningPoint of carePoint-of-care testingImmunologyAntibodyConfidence intervalHiv testAntigenVirologyInternal medicinePathologyMen who have sex with menEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compared the INSTI(TM) HIV-1 Antibody Point-of-Care (POC) Test to laboratory-based tests for detection of early sero-conversion (i.e. acute) HIV infections. Fifty-three (53) individuals with early HIV infection, (i.e. 3(rd) generation anti-HIV EIA non-reactive or reactive, HIV-1 Western Blot non-reactive or indeterminate and HIV-1 p24 antigen reactive) were tested by INSTI(TM). The INSTI(TM) test was reactive for 34/49 (sensitivity 69.4%; 95% confidence interval 54.6-81.8%) early-infected individuals whose laboratory-based 3(rd) generation HIV EIA test was reactive. Four (4) were non-reactive by both the laboratory-based EIA and INSTI(TM )tests, but were p24 antigen reactive. The INSTI(TM )POC test performs well compared with other POC tests for the detection of early sero-conversion HIV infection, but it may miss 20% to 30% of those detected by laboratory-based 3(rd) generation anti-HIV tests. Both POC and laboratory-based anti-HIV tests will fail to detect a proportion of infected individuals in the first weeks after infection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Open AIDS JournalSame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207