Humoral response to Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigens in patients with tuberculosis in the Gambia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the sensitivity and specificity of four common mycobacterial antigens with three RD-1 region antigens in the serological diagnosis of active pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) in the Gambia. DESIGN: Serum from 300 Gambians (100 with active PTB, 100 of their household contacts, and 100 community controls) was tested using an ELISA method to detect antibodies to seven mycobacterial antigens (three encoded in the RD-1 region [ESAT-6, CFP-10 and Rv3871] and four common [38 kDa, GLU-S, 19 kDa and 14 kDa]). Individuals with active TB were recruited from one of the National Leprosy and TB Control Program clinics in the western region of the Gambia, and neighborhood controls were an age-matched individual living within five houses of the case. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the RD-1 antigens ranged from 34% to 67%, while specificity ranged from 51% to 71%. The sensitivity of the common antigens ranged from 24% to 75% and specificity from 26% to 75%. CONCLUSION: In countries with high rates of TB, such as the Gambia, the clinical utility of serological testing to diagnose active TB remains limited, even with newer antigens encoded in the RD-1 region of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".