↓ Skip to main content

Bayesian adaptive algorithms for locating HIV mobile testing services

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bayesian adaptive algorithms for locating HIV mobile testing services
Published in
BMC Medicine, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12916-018-1129-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregg S. Gonsalves, J. Tyler Copple, Tyler Johnson, A. David Paltiel, Joshua L. Warren

Abstract

We have previously conducted computer-based tournaments to compare the yield of alternative approaches to deploying mobile HIV testing services in settings where the prevalence of undetected infection may be characterized by 'hotspots'. We report here on three refinements to our prior assessments and their implications for decision-making. Specifically, (1) enlarging the number of geographic zones; (2) including spatial correlation in the prevalence of undetected infection; and (3) evaluating a prospective search algorithm that accounts for such correlation. Building on our prior work, we used a simulation model to create a hypothetical city consisting of up to 100 contiguous geographic zones. Each zone was randomly assigned a prevalence of undetected HIV infection. We employed a user-defined weighting scheme to correlate infection levels between adjacent zones. Over 180 days, search algorithms selected a zone in which to conduct a fixed number of HIV tests. Algorithms were permitted to observe the results of their own prior testing activities and to use that information in choosing where to test in subsequent rounds. The algorithms were (1) Thompson sampling (TS), an adaptive Bayesian search strategy; (2) Besag York Mollié (BYM), a Bayesian hierarchical model; and (3) Clairvoyance, a benchmarking strategy with access to perfect information. Over 250 tournament runs, BYM detected 65.3% (compared to 55.1% for TS) of the cases identified by Clairvoyance. BYM outperformed TS in all sensitivity analyses, except when there was a small number of zones (i.e., 16 zones in a 4 × 4 grid), wherein there was no significant difference in the yield of the two strategies. Though settings of no, low, medium, and high spatial correlation in the data were examined, differences in these levels did not have a significant effect on the relative performance of BYM versus TS. BYM narrowly outperformed TS in our simulation, suggesting that small improvements in yield can be achieved by accounting for spatial correlation. However, the comparative simplicity with which TS can be implemented makes a field evaluation critical to understanding the practical value of either of these algorithms as an alternative to existing approaches for deploying HIV testing resources.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 14 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Computer Science 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 16 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 October 2023.
All research outputs
#3,865,901
of 25,734,859 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,195
of 4,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,124
of 346,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#43
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,734,859 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,080 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.8. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,571 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.