MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1577869797 · doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1855-6

Impact of tea drinking upon tuberculosis: a neglected issue

2015· article· en· W1577869797 on OpenAlexaff
Mengshi Chen, Jing Deng, Wufei Li, D. Y. Lin, Congxu Su, Mian Wang, Xun Li, Benjamin Abuaku, Hongzhuan Tan, Shi Wu Wen

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTea Polyphenols and Effects
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCentral South University
KeywordsMedicineEnvironmental healthTuberculosisPublic healthGreen teaBiostatisticsIncidence (geometry)Logistic regressionToxicologyFood scienceInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) is a global public health issue posing serious harm to the human health. Many studies have suggested that smoking and excessive alcohol consumption are risk factors for TB. Laboratory evidence suggests that EGCG in tea leaves can arrest the growth of tubercle bacillus. Can drinking tea lead to decreased susceptibility of TB in humans? METHODS: A total of 574 TB patients and 582 healthy controls were recruited to participate in this case-control study. Self-designed questionnaire was used to collect data. Unconditioned logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify the associations between tea drinking and TB. RESULTS: Tea drinking has a negative association with TB, with OR = 0.583(0.423, 0.804) and P < 0.05. Drinking black tea, oolong and green tea are all negative association with TB, with OR being 0.683(0.517, 0.902), 0.674(0.508, 0.894) and 0.534(0.349, 0.817) respectively and P < 0.05. Trend χ (2) test indicated a decreasing risk for TB with increased tea consumption, with P < 0.05. CONCLUSION: There is a significance negative association between tea drinking and TB. Promoting the consumption of tea as the daily drink among populations, particularly those with high TB risk, may reduce the incidence of TB in the populations.

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 score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicTea Polyphenols and EffectsFrench-language works237,207