Impact of point-of-care implementation of Xpert<SUP>®</SUP> MTB/RIF: product vs. process innovation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both product innovation (e.g., more sensitive tests) and process innovation (e.g., a point-of-care [POC] testing programme) could improve patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To study the respective contributions of product and process innovation in improving patient outcomes. DESIGN: We implemented a POC programme using Xpert(®) MTB/RIF in an out-patient clinic of a tertiary care hospital in India. We measured the impact of process innovation by comparing time to diagnosis with routine testing vs. POC testing. We measured the impact of product innovation by comparing accuracy and time to diagnosis using smear microscopy vs. POC Xpert. RESULTS: We enrolled 1012 patients over a 15-month period. Xpert had high accuracy, but the incremental value of one Xpert over two smears was only 6% (95%CI 3-12). Implementing Xpert as a routine laboratory test did not reduce the time to diagnosis compared to smear-based diagnosis. In contrast, the POC programme reduced the time to diagnosis by 5.5 days (95%CI 4.3-6.7), but required dedicated staff and substantial adaptation of clinic workflow. CONCLUSION: Process innovation by way of a POC Xpert programme had a greater impact on time to diagnosis than the product per se, and can yield important improvements in patient care that are complementary to those achieved by introducing innovative technologies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".