Bibliographic record
Abstract
In April 2000, the American Thoracic Society published guidelines for targeted tuberculin testing and the treatment of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) (1). These guidelines are a joint statement of the American Thoracic Society and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and were endorsed by both the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Similar recommendations were published by the Infectious Diseases Society of America in its guidelines for the treatment of tuberculosis (TB) (2). These updated guidelines were developed in recognition of the importance of treating LTBI as one component of eliminating TB in the United States ‐ a goal reiterated in 1999 by the Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis (3) ‐ but also realizing the differing risks and benefits of treatment for patients based on their individual risks of developing active disease or drug toxicity (4). The 2000 edition of the Canadian Tuberculosis Standardsprovided similar recommendations for the treatment of LTBI (formerly known as chemoprophylaxis) and reminded us of the two major Canadian TB elimination initiatives: the National Tuberculosis Elimination Strategy (Medical Services Branch, 1992), with the aim of eliminating TB in First Nations people by 2010, and the National Consensus Conference on Tuberculosis (Health Canada, 1997), with an interim goal of a 5% reduction in the number of TB cases each year in Canada (5). Given the recent publication of the American guidelines and the updated Canadian Tuberculosis Standards (Fifth Edition), it was considered timely to remind readers of the evidence supporting the use of antituberculous chemotherapy in the treatment of latent infection.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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".