MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4382682016 · doi:10.51731/cjht.2023.675

Rapid HIV Self-Testing

2023· article· en· W4382682016 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sharon A. Bailey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health Technologies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)FingerstickMedicineTest (biology)Hiv testImmunologyEnvironmental healthPopulationBiologyDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-testing has become recognizable to most people in Canada as a way to reduce the spread of infections. HIV self-testing has recently become available in Canada and is an approach to HIV screening intended to complement existing HIV testing currently offered in medical and community settings. Self-test kits can be used in the home, alone or in the presence of another person, and they may help overcome barriers to HIV diagnosis, and help Canada achieve its commitments to end the HIV and AIDS epidemics by 2030. HIV self-testing is recommended by the WHO, used in countries worldwide. The INSTI HIV-1/2 Antibody Self Test is the first HIV self-test available in Canada. It is a single-use HIV test kit that detects HIV-1 and HIV-2 antibodies from a drop of blood collected by a fingerstick. In 50% of people, the test can detect HIV infection about 22 days after exposure, and in 99% of people can detect HIV infection 12 weeks (3 months) after infection. As the INSTI HIV-1/2 Antibody Self Test is intended as a screening test, a positive result must be confirmed with a laboratory-based test. If the result is negative, no further action is required unless the tester has had a potential HIV exposure in the previous 3 months. In this case, a person should self-test at a later date or seek a laboratory-based HIV test that is able to detect HIV in a shorter window of time since potential exposure. While the comparability of the INSTI HIV-1/2 Antibody Self Test with traditional lab testing has already been established, when used in real-world settings in Canada, there is a higher than-expected rate of invalid test results (that is, when the test does not produce a result and therefore another test must be taken). Improvements to the content, design, or delivery of the test instructions and other resource materials provided to testers have been offered as possible solutions. This report outlines information related to the INSTI HIV-1/2 Antibody Self Test use in Canada and issues for consideration when implementing an HIV self-testing program including cost, support for testers, and providing test access to groups who have historically had lower testing rates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1130.053

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health Technologies→Same topicHIV Research and Treatment→French-language works237,207→