MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1507924754

The value of end-of-treatment chest radiograph in predicting pulmonary tuberculosis relapse.

2008· article· en· W1507924754 on OpenAlexaff
Carol Hamilton, Jason E. Stout, Philip C. Goodman, Amanda Mosher, Richard Menzies, Neil W. Schluger, Abdul Qadir Khan, John L. Johnson, Andrew Vernon

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChest radiographTuberculosisInternal medicineHazard ratioRadiographyLungSurgeryConfidence intervalPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SETTING: Patients with cavitary pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) on baseline chest radiograph (CXR) who remain culture-positive after 8 weeks of treatment are at high risk of relapse. The role of end-of-treatment (EOT) CXR in predicting relapse is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether EOT CXR independently predicts TB relapse. DESIGN: We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized trial of intermittent treatment using rifapentine in the continuation phase of TB treatment among 1004 human immunodeficiency virus seronegative adults with culture-proven pulmonary TB. RESULTS: Relapse occurred in 17.3% of subjects with persistent cavity on EOT CXR, in 7.6% of subjects with a cavity that resolved by EOT, and 2.5% (P=0.002 for trend) of subjects who never had a cavity. In multivariable analysis, patients with persistent cavity on EOT CXR were significantly more likely to relapse than patients with no cavity on baseline or 2-month CXR (hazard ratio [HR] 4.22, 95%CI 2.00-8.91), and were more likely to relapse than subjects whose early cavity had resolved by EOT CXR (HR 1.92, 95%CI 1.09-3.39). CONCLUSION: A persistent cavity after 6 months of TB treatment was independently associated with disease relapse after controlling for other variables. EOT CXR may help predict those likely to relapse.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations49
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207