Burden of tuberculosis in indigenous peoples globally: a systematic review [Review article]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The burden of tuberculosis (TB) in the estimated 370 million indigenous peoples worldwide is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a literature review to summarize the TB burden in indigenous peoples, identify gaps in current knowledge, and provide the foundation for a research agenda prioritizing indigenous health within TB control. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified articles published between January 1990 and November 2011 quantifying TB disease burden in indigenous populations worldwide. RESULTS: Among the 91 articles from 19 countries included in the review, only 56 were from outside Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. The majority of the studies showed higher TB rates among indigenous groups than non-indigenous groups. Studies from the Amazon generally reported the highest TB prevalence and incidence, but select populations from South-East Asia and Africa were found to have similarly high rates of TB. In North America, the Inuit had the highest reported TB incidence (156/100000), whereas the Metis of Canada and American Indians/Alaska Natives experienced rates of <10/100000. New Zealand's Maori and Pacific Islanders had higher TB incidence rates than Australian Aborigines, but all were at greater risk of developing TB than non-indigenous groups. CONCLUSION: Where data exist, indigenous peoples were generally found to have higher rates of TB disease than non-indigenous peoples; however, this burden varied greatly. The paucity of published information on TB burden among indigenous peoples highlights the need to implement and improve TB surveillance to better measure and understand global disparities in TB 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".