Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: AIDS. 2019 Jun 1;33(7):1231–1240. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000002190

Table 3.

Sensitivity of “testing history” method estimates to the type of testing history information available

Staging scenarios compared Information used by the “testing history method” Specimens Model performance: predicted vs.
observed infection duration
Results included at each
observation1 		Observations included N/n ICC RMS difference2
“Fiebig-like”: same-day tests, vs.results from different days RNA (qualitative), p24, 3G, 2G, WB Same day 30/104 0.698 4.1
RNA (qualitative), p24, 3G, 2G, WB Two days (two bleeds apart) 30/104 0.715 3.7*
Newer Assays RNA (qualitative), 3G, WB Same day 14/64 0.739 4.3
RNA (qualitative), 4G, Geenius Same day 14/64 0.698 5.3*
*

statistically significant difference in prediction accuracy between model scenarios at a level of p<0.05.

Abbreviations: ICC = intraclass correlation; RMS = root mean square; 3G = 3rd Generation (IgM-sensitive antibody assays); 2G = 2nd Generation (Recombinant IgG-sensitive antibody assays); 4G = 4th Generation (p24 antigen/antibody assays); WB = Western blot; N = unique individuals; n = specimens from different timepoints

1

For these analyses the testing history was assumed not to include the quantitative viral load.

2

RMS = root mean square – difference between predicted and observed data was calculated as a measure of estimation error