HIV counseling and testing in tuberculosis contact investigations in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Determining the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status of tuberculosis (TB) patients and contacts is important. Despite existing guidelines, not all patients are tested, and testing of contacts is rarely performed. METHODS: In a study conducted at nine US/Canadian sites, we introduced formal procedures for offering HIV testing to TB patients and contacts. Data were collected via interviews and medical record review. Characteristics associated with offering and accepting HIV testing were examined. RESULTS: Of 651 TB patients, 601 (92%) were offered testing, 511 (85%) accepted, and 51 (10%) were HIV-infected. Of 4152 contacts, 3099 (75%) were offered testing, 1202 (39%) accepted, and 24 (2%) were HIV-infected. Contacts aged 15-64 years, non-Whites, foreign-born persons, smokers, those with positive TB screening, and household contacts were more likely to be offered testing, whereas contacts exposed to HIV-negative patients were less likely to be offered testing. Contacts aged 15-64 years, smokers, drug/alcohol users, diabetics, and those with positive TB screening were more likely to accept testing. Foreign-born persons, Blacks, Hispanics, and contacts exposed to HIV-positive patients were less likely to accept testing. CONCLUSIONS: High rates of HIV were detected among patients and contacts. Despite structured procedures to offer HIV testing, some patients and most contacts did not accept testing. Strategies are needed to improve testing acceptance rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".