Comparison of Screening Procedures for <i>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</i> Infection Among Patients with Inflammatory Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test if Mycobacterium tuberculosis screening results differ among patients with inflammatory disease depending on whether the QuantiFeron TB-Gold test (QFT) or tuberculin skin test (TST) is used; and to evaluate if a possible difference is influenced by the presence of risk factors or immunosuppression. METHODS: The interferon-gamma response to in vitro stimulation of M. tuberculosis-specific antigens was measured with QFT and results were compared with TST. Associations to bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccination, risk factors, and immunosuppression were analyzed for both tests. RESULTS: QFT and TST results were available for 294/302 and 241/302 patients, respectively; 234 had results from both tests. Twenty-one (7%) tested positive with QFT and 45 (19%) with TST. A positive QFT was associated with risk factors for M. tuberculosis infection: i.e., birth or upbringing in a TB-endemic area [risk ratio (RR) = 7.8, 95% CI 1.5-18.2, p < 0.001], previous TB treatment (RR 4.7, 95% CI 1.6-13.5, p = 0.005), and any latent TB infection risk factor (RR 4.7, 95% CI 2.1-11.0, p = 0.0002). Treatment with corticosteroids increased the risk for an inconclusive QFT result (RR 4.2, 95% CI 1.6-10.7, p = 0.04) and decreased the risk for a positive TST result (RR 0.4, 95% CI 0.1-1.0, p = 0.04). Agreement between the tests was low (kappa 0.2, 95% CI 0.02-0.3, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The study documented a high degree of discordant positive QFT and TST results. A positive QFT was more closely associated with risk factors for M. tuberculosis infection than the TST. The use of corticosteroids affected test outcome by increasing the risk for an inconclusive QFT result and decreasing the risk for a positive TST result.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".