The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Microchip CD4 Counting Method for HIV Monitoring in Resource-Poor Settings
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: More than 35 million people in developing countries are living with HIV infection. An enormous global effort is now underway to bring antiretroviral treatment to at least 3 million of those infected. While drug prices have dropped considerably, the cost and technical complexity of laboratory tests essential for the management of HIV disease, such as CD4 cell counts, remain prohibitive. New, simple, and affordable methods for measuring CD4 cells that can be implemented in resource-scarce settings are urgently needed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Here we describe the development of a prototype for a simple, rapid, and affordable method for counting CD4 lymphocytes. Microliter volumes of blood without further sample preparation are stained with fluorescent antibodies, captured on a membrane within a miniaturized flow cell and imaged through microscope optics with the type of charge-coupled device developed for digital camera technology. An associated computer algorithm converts the raw digital image into absolute CD4 counts and CD4 percentages in real time. The accuracy of this prototype system was validated through testing in the United States and Botswana, and showed close agreement with standard flow cytometry (r = 0.95) over a range of absolute CD4 counts, and the ability to discriminate clinically relevant CD4 count thresholds with high sensitivity and specificity. CONCLUSION: Advances in the adaptation of new technologies to biomedical detection systems, such as the one described here, promise to make complex diagnostics for HIV and other infectious diseases a practical global reality.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring agreement in method comparison studies
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1999) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/096228029900800204 · Cited by 9,619
Passing, H., & Bablok, W. (1983) · cclm · doi:10.1515/cclm.1983.21.11.709 · Cited by 1,513
Cited by
Point-of-Care Diagnostics for Global Health
Yager, P., Domingo, G. J., & Gerdes, J. (2008) · Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1146/annurev.bioeng.10.061807.160524 · Cited by 1,076
Point-of-care tests for diagnosing infections in the developing world
Peeling, R. W., & Mabey, D. (2010) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03279.x · Cited by 500
Biosensor technology: recent advances in threat agent detection and medicine
Kirsch, J., Siltanen, C., Zhou, Q., Revzin, A., & Simonian, A. (2013) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c3cs60141b · Cited by 462
Nano/Microfluidics for diagnosis of infectious diseases in developing countries
Lee, W. G., Kim, Y.-G., Chung, B. G., Demirci, U., & Khademhosseini, A. (2010) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.addr.2009.11.016 · Cited by 357
Metadata
- Authors
- Rodriguez, W. R., Christodoulides, N., Floriano, P. N., Graham, S., Mohanty, S., Dixon, M., Hsiang, M., Peter, T., Zavahir, S., Thior, I., Romanovicz, D., Bernard, B., Goodey, A. P., Walker, B. D., & McDevitt, J. T.
- Venue
- PLoS Medicine
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2005-07-19
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e182
- ISSN
- 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-1676
- OpenAlex
- W2135072941
- Cited by
- 196
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Microchip CD4 Counting Method for HIV Monitoring in Resource-Poor Settings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020182
- The paper
- Rodriguez, W. R., Christodoulides, N., Floriano, P. N., Graham, S., Mohanty, S., Dixon, M., Hsiang, M., Peter, T., Zavahir, S., Thior, I., Romanovicz, D., Bernard, B., Goodey, A. P., Walker, B. D., & McDevitt, J. T. (2005). A Microchip CD4 Counting Method for HIV Monitoring in Resource-Poor Settings. PLoS Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020182
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.