MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W149819752

Interferon-gamma release assays and TB screening in high-income countries: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

2007· article· en· W149819752 on OpenAlexaffabout
Olivia Oxlade, Kevin Schwartzman, Dick Menzies

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecologyMedical screeningCost analysisHumanitiesArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Interferon-gamma release assays (IGRA) are now available alternatives to tuberculin skin testing (TST) for detection of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI). We compared the cost-effectiveness of TST and IGRA in different populations and clinical situations, and with variation of a number of parameters. METHODS: Markov modelling was used to compare expected TB cases and costs over 20 years following screening for TB with different strategies among hypothetical cohorts of foreign-born entrants to Canada, or contacts of TB cases. The less expensive commercial IGRA, Quanti-FERON-TB Gold (QFT), was examined. Model inputs were derived from published literature. RESULTS: For entering immigrants, screening with chest radiograph (CXR) would be the most and QFT the least cost-effective. Sequential screening with TST then QFT was more cost-effective than QFT alone in all scenarios, and more cost-effective than TST alone in selected subgroups. Among close and casual contacts, screening with TST or QFT would be cost saving; savings with TST would be greater than with QFT, except in contacts who were bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccinated after infancy. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for LTBI, with TST or QFT, is cost-effective only if the risk of disease is high. The most cost-effective use of QFT is to test TST-positive persons.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations121
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207