Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Sensitization in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: The prevalence of pulmonary nontuberculous mycobacterial (NTM) infections in the United States appears to be rising, but it is unclear if this is due to enhanced detection or actual increases in the burden of infection. Temporal changes in the epidemiology of Mycobacterium intracellulare sensitization may help explain recently observed trends in pulmonary NTM infections. OBJECTIVES: Describe the epidemiology of M. intracellulare sensitization in the United States in 1971-1972 and 1999-2000. METHODS: We studied nationally representative cohorts of the United States' noninstitutionalized civilian population participating in the 1971-1972 and 1999-2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). Participants were skin tested with M. intracellulare antigen and sensitization prevalence was compared across NHANES surveys and between participant subgroups. Logistic regression was used to identify associations between participant characteristics, environmental factors, and NTM sensitization. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The 1971-1972 and 1999-2000 NHANES cohorts included 1,490 and 7,384 individuals, respectively. Between 1971-1972 and 1999-2000, the prevalence of M. intracellulare sensitization increased from 11.2% (95% confidence interval, 9.2-13.5%) to 16.6% (95% confidence interval, 13.2-20.6%). On multivariate analysis of the 1999-2000 cohort, age, sex, race, birthplace, education, and occupation were strongly associated with M. intracellulare sensitization. CONCLUSIONS: In 1999-2000, an estimated one in six persons in the United States demonstrated M. intracellulare sensitization, up from one in nine persons in 1971-1972. The observed rising prevalence of sensitization is consistent with observed increases in the rates of pulmonary NTM infections in the United States.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".