ArticleBiometrics2024
A likelihood approach to incorporating self-report data in HIV recency classification.
Article in Biometrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Estimating new HIV infections is significant yet challenging due to the difficulty in distinguishing between recent and long-term infections. We demonstrate that HIV recency status (recent versus long-term) could be determined from self-report testing history and biomarkers, which are increasingly available in bio-behavioral surveys. HIV recency status is partially observed, given the self-report testing history. For example, people who tested positive for HIV over 1 year ago should have a long-term infection. Based on the nationally representative samples collected by the Population-based HIV Impact Assessment (PHIA) Project, we propose a likelihood-based probabilistic model for HIV recency classification. The model incorporates individuals with known recency status based on testing histories and individuals whose recency status could not be determined and integrates the mechanism of how HIV recency status depends on biomarkers and the mechanism of how HIV recency status, together with the self-report time of the most recent HIV test, impacts the test results. We compare our method to logistic regression and the binary classification tree (current practice) on Malawi PHIA data, as well as on simulated data. Our model obtains more efficient and less biased parameter estimates and is relatively robust to potential reporting error and model misspecification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.