MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W175633408

Thinking in three dimensions: a web-based algorithm to aid the interpretation of tuberculin skin test results.

2008· article· en· W175633408 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dick Menzies, G.A. Gardiner, Maha Farhat, Christina Greenaway, Madhukar Pai

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTuberculinEpidemiologySkin testLatent tuberculosisDiseaseTuberculosisAlgorithmVaccinationInternal medicineImmunologyPathologyMycobacterium tuberculosis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The tuberculin skin test (TST) is the most widely used test for detecting tuberculosis (TB) infection. Accurate interpretation of TST requires consideration of three dimensions-the size of the skin reaction, the positive predictive value (PPV) and risk of disease. METHODS: We developed a web-based algorithm incorporating epidemiological, medical and radiographic risk factors to help in the interpretation of positive TST results in adults (http://www.meakins.mcgill.ca/meakins/NEW TST Calculator/homeE.htm). We used summary estimates from published reviews on the prevalence of latent TB infection, the likelihood of false-positive TST and risk of active TB disease. RESULTS: The algorithm calculations show that the most important determinants of risk of active disease are the presence of medical and radiographic risk factors, while the size of the reaction is of modest importance. In persons who have received bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccination after infancy, the algorithm calculations show that the PPV will be low. In such persons, the risk of disease is predicted to be very low, unless there are medical or radiographic risk factors that increase the risk of reactivation. CONCLUSIONS: Our web-based algorithm can generate clinically useful estimates of the annual and cumulative lifetime risk of developing TB in adults with a positive TST.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations96
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207