Performance of and preference for oral rapid HIV testing in The Bahamas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Initiatives to increase access to quality rapid HIV diagnostics have had relative success in the Caribbean in recent years, including use of oral rapid HIV testing. However, to date, there has not been any investigation into the performance or acceptability of oral fluids HIV testing in the region. In this cross-sectional study in The Bahamas, 252 persons of unknown serostatus were tested side-by-side with two oral rapid test brands, and the results were compared with the national fingerprick algorithm. In addition, an exit survey was administered to 234 study participants to assess user test preference. The most frequent survey response was to have no test preference (47.8%), but of those who expressed a test preference, most preferred oral (34.4%) versus fingerprick (17.8%) method. Both OraQuick and AWARE were 100% concordant with the gold standard. Therefore, our results show that oral fluids rapid testing is preferred over fingerprick testing by a subset of the potential target population and performs well in a population of undiagnosed persons attending screening clinic in The Bahamas.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".