MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1529893853 · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-6-66

The impact of smoking on adherence to treatment for latent tuberculosis infection

2006· article· en· W1529893853 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Lavigne, Isabelle Rocher, Colin Steensma, Paul Brassard

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria HospitalRoyal Victoria Regional Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineLatent tuberculosisTuberculosisBiostatisticsInternal medicineSmoking cessationRegimenEpidemiologyDiseasePublic healthYoung adultMycobacterium tuberculosisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown an association between smoking and tuberculosis (TB) infection, disease and TB-related mortality. We hypothesized that smokers with latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) are less likely to comply with their LTBI treatment regimen, thus increasing their risk of developing active disease. We thus documented the impact of smoking on adherence to LTBI treatment. METHOD: Between 1998 and 2000, a convenience sample of patients undergoing treatment for LTBI completed a questionnaire on smoking status. Level of adherence to LTBI treatment was tested for associations with socio-demographic profile, and smoking status RESULTS: 320 patients were recruited, and 302 (94%) completed the questionnaire. Smoking prevalence was 21%. 72% of patients were adherent to LTBI treatment. Women (OR = 2.0; 95% CI: 1.2-3.3) and non-smokers (OR = 1.8; 95% CI: 1.0-3.3) were associated with adherence to LTBI treatment. Only gender was found as an independent predictor of adherence after adjusting for age and smoking status (OR = 1.9; 95% CI: 1.06-3.3). CONCLUSION: Males and smokers need to have extra supervision to ensure compliance with LTBI treatment.

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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations68
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207