Assessing the accuracy of self-reporting HIV testing behaviour in Houston/Harris County, Texas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began directly estimating human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) incidence based upon the Serologic Testing Algorithm for Recent HIV Seroconversion (STARHS) and individuals' testing and treatment history, collected as part of the HIV Incidence Surveillance (HIS) system.The algorithm relies largely upon individuals' self-reported testing history.The primary objective of this study is to describe the methodology and procedures used to assess the similarities between self-reported and medical record data on HIV status and the dates of first positive and last negative tests. Material and methods:The testing history from the individuals is used in combination with the latest laboratory assay tests to obtain a direct population-based estimate of HIV incidence.Understanding how accurate the self-report testing information is will help in estimating HIV incidence.Partnerships were made with the medical clinics and Counselling and Testing facilities, and the participants were recruited from the patients attending these facilities.Participants were interviewed to ascertain the self-report of HIV test, HIV status, the date and location of the most recent HIV-negative test and the first HIV-positive test.Medical record abstraction was done after participants' authorisation to compare the accuracy of self-report testing data.Results: The participants' response rate was 83.7%, and the most common reason of not participating was lack of interest in the study.Data analysis is reported by CDC and Houston Health Department in a separate article.Conclusions: The methodology and procedures adopted in this study can be adopted, replicated, and improved in future studies exploring self-report accuracy.
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 | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".