Comparative evaluation of the Bio-Rad Geenius HIV-1/2 Confirmatory Assay and the Bio-Rad Multispot HIV-1/2 Rapid Test as an alternative differentiation assay for CLSI M53 algorithm-I
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The CLSI-M53-A, Criteria for Laboratory Testing and Diagnosis of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection; Approved Guideline includes an algorithm in which samples that are reactive on a 4th generation EIA screen proceed to a supplemental assay that is able to confirm and differentiate between antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2. The recently CE-marked Bio-Rad Geenius HIV-1/2 Confirmatory Assay was evaluated as an alternative to the FDA-approved Bio-Rad Multispot HIV-1/HIV-2 Rapid Test which has been previously validated for use in this new algorithm. METHODS: This study used reference samples submitted to the Canadian - NLHRS and samples from commercial sources. Data was tabulated in 2×2 tables for statistical analysis; sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, kappa and likelihood ratios. RESULTS: The overall performance of the Geenius and Multispot was very high; sensitivity (100%, 100%), specificity (96.3%, 99.1%), positive (45.3, 181) and negative (0, 0) likelihood ratios respectively, high kappa (0.96) and low bias index (0.0068). The ability to differentiate HIV-1 (99.2%, 100%) and HIV-2 (98.1%, 98.1%) Ab was also very high. CONCLUSION: The Bio-Rad Geenius HIV-1/2 Confirmatory Assay is a suitable alternative to the validated Multispot for use in the second stage of CLSI M53 algorithm-I. The Geenius has additional features including traceability and sample and cassette barcoding that improve the quality management/assurance of HIV testing. It is anticipated that the CLSI M53 guideline and assays such as the Geenius will reduce the number of indeterminate test results previously associated with the HIV-1 WB and improve the ability to differentiate HIV-2 infections.
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 | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".