Evaluation of the Bio-Rad Geenius HIV 1/2 Assay as Part of a Confirmatory HIV Testing Strategy for Quebec, Canada: Comparison with Western Blot and Inno-Lia Assays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid confirmatory Bio-Rad Geenius HIV 1/2 assay was evaluated as an alternative to the HIV-1 Western blot (WB) confirmatory assay. A total of 370 retrospective samples collected from 356 patients were tested. Sensitivity of the Geenius assay to detect HIV-1 and HIV-2 infections was 100% and 97%, respectively, and that of the WB assay was 86% and 39%, respectively. Geenius reduced the number of indeterminate results by 85% and exhibited a differentiation capacity for HIV-1 and HIV-2 of 100% and 89%, respectively. Three of 10 patients presenting with an early HIV infection (1 to 2 weeks before seroconversion by WB) were positive using Geenius. None of the HIV-negative samples were positive using Geenius or WB. However, 7% and 10% of them were indeterminate with Geenius and WB, respectively, leading to a specificity rate of 93% for Geenius and 90% for WB. Ninety cadaveric samples (54 negative, 23 HIV-1 positive, and 3 HIV-1 indeterminate) were tested with Geenius, leading to a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 96%, and an indeterminate rate of 4%. Our results indicate that the Bio-Rad Geenius HIV 1/2 rapid test exhibits better sensitivity to detect HIV-1 infections and better performance than WB to confirm and differentiate between HIV-1 and HIV-2 infections. The performance of this new confirmatory assay to detect early infections, to reduce the rate of indeterminate status, and to confirm HIV-1 infection in cadaveric blood samples makes Geenius a potent reliable alternative to the WB.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".