An HIV1/2 point of care test on sputum for screening TB/HIV co-infection in central India – Will it work?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the OraQuick® HIV-1/2 Assay (OraSure Technologies, Inc., Bethlehem, PA, USA) in sputum is a valid tool for HIV surveillance among TB patients. METHODS: A cross sectional study was carried out on sputa of patients diagnosed with tuberculosis. Sputa were tested for antibodies to HIV using OraQuick® HIV-1/2 Assay (OraSure Technologies, Inc., Bethlehem, PA, USA). The results were compared with results of serum ELISA. RESULTS: Compared to serum ELISA, the OraQuick® HIV-1/2 Assay in sputum specimens reported 90% sensitivity (9/10) and 100% specificity (307/307), with a positive predictive value of 100% (95%CI: 66.37%-100.00%) and a negative predictive value of 99.68% (95%CI: 98.20%-99.99%). CONCLUSIONS: This testing method may provide a useful strategy for conducting HIV surveillance in possible co-infected TB patients at peripheral centres. Since there is no investment on infrastructure, it may be possible for paramedical health professionals to carry out the test, particularly in areas with low HIV endemicity.
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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".