MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406240784 · doi:10.1186/s12889-024-21228-8

A prospective multi-site study to evaluate the performance and usability of an oral fluid-based HIV self-test in Canada

2025· article· en· W4406240784 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Richard A. Galli, Darshanand Maraj, Kristin McBain, Jason M. Lo Hog Tian, Abbey McFarland, Wangari Tharao, Nontobeko P. Nkala, Arlene Chan, Mark Da Silva, Réjean Thomas, Anne-Fanny Vassal, Martín Lepage, Laurie Ireland, Mike Payne, J. R. Starr, Chris Fraser, Marion Selfridge, Mona Loutfy, Roberta Halpenny, Nirubini Jeyarajah, Vanessa Tran, Tony Mazzulli, Sean B. Rourke

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioMaple Leaf FoodsUniversity of ManitobaHassle Free ClinicWomen's Health In Women's HandsWomen's College HospitalNine Circles Community Health CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiostatisticsMedicineUsabilityHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Test (biology)Gold standard (test)Public healthDescriptive statisticsFamily medicineIndigenousEpidemiologyInternal medicineNursingStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Blood and oral fluid-based HIV self-tests are important for reaching the undiagnosed living with HIV. The study objectives were to evaluate the oral fluid-based OraQuick® HIV Self-Test (HIV-ST) performance in comparison to laboratory reference testing; determine if laypersons can correctly perform the HIV-ST; document if intended users can successfully interpret pre-made contrived positive, negative, and invalid results; and document if intended users can understand the key messages in the product labeling. METHODS: This prospective study enrolled consenting adult intended users of HIV self-testing from six community health centres in four Canadian provinces between June 2022 and January 2024. Positive and negative agreement was determined by comparing the results of the HIV self-tests with the results of the laboratory-based "gold standard" Abbott Alinity HIV Antigen/Antibody Combo test. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize usability self-test procedure steps. RESULTS: Overall, 951 participants were recruited and consented with 911 available for all analyses. With respect to sociodemographics: 84% of participants were between 18-45 years of age, 73% had at least a college education, 48% were Cis-male, 45% were employed; and 26% identified as White, 23% as African, Caribbean or Black, 5% as Indigenous [First Nations, Métis or Inuit], 33% as Asian, and 6% as LatinX. Primary efficacy analysis on the 911 who completed HIV-ST revealed a single confirmed positive participant and a negative percent agreement of 100% (880/880, 95% CI: 99.9-100%) with the comparator method. For usability determination, the average success rate for "critical" steps for completing the test was 94.1%. Approximately 97% of participants found the instructions easy to follow and 98% of participants reported they would use the test again. Of the 465 participants who interpreted the strong positive, weak positive, negative, and invalid pre-made contrived results, the average of correct interpretations ranged from 59-97% CONCLUSIONS: A licensed oral fluid-based HIV self-test in Canada can present an accurate, easy-to-use, and less invasive alternative to blood-based HIV testing. The addition of an oral-fluid self-test along with the current licensed blood-based HIV self-test could help reach the undiagnosed with HIV in Canada and positively impact HIV testing rates overall by offering individuals a choice of self-testing devices.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public Health→Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→