Tuberculosis associates with both airflow obstruction and low lung function: BOLD results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In small studies and cases series, a history of tuberculosis has been associated with both airflow obstruction, which is characteristic of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and restrictive patterns on spirometry. The objective of the present study was to assess the association between a history of tuberculosis and airflow obstruction and spirometric abnormalities in adults.The study was performed in adults, aged 40 years and above, who took part in the multicentre, cross-sectional, general population-based Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease study, and had provided acceptable post-bronchodilator spirometry measurements and information on a history of tuberculosis. The associations between a history of tuberculosis and airflow obstruction and spirometric restriction were assessed within each participating centre, and estimates combined using meta-analysis. These estimates were stratified by high- and low/middle-income countries, according to gross national income.A self-reported history of tuberculosis was associated with airflow obstruction (adjusted odds ratio 2.51, 95% CI 1.83-3.42) and spirometric restriction (adjusted odds ratio 2.13, 95% CI 1.42-3.19).A history of tuberculosis was associated with both airflow obstruction and spirometric restriction, and should be considered as a potentially important cause of obstructive disease and low lung function, particularly where tuberculosis is common.
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 | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".