Diagnostic Accuracy of Chest Radiography for the Diagnosis of Tuberculosis (TB) and Its Role in the Detection of Latent TB Infection: a Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this systematic review we evaluate the role of chest radiography (CXR) in the diagnostic flow chart for tuberculosis (TB) infection, focusing on latent TB infection (LTBI) in patients requiring medical treatment with biological drugs. In recent findings, patients scheduled for immunomodulatory therapy with biologic drugs are a group at risk of TB reactivation and, in such patients, detection of LTBI is of great importance. CXR for diagnosis of pulmonary TB has good sensitivity, but poor specificity. Radiographic diagnosis of active disease can only be reliably made on the basis of temporal evolution of pulmonary lesions. In vivo tuberculin skin test and ex vivo interferon-γ release assays are designed to identify development of an adaptive immune response, but not necessarily LTBI. Computed tomography (CT) is able to distinguish active from inactive disease. CT is considered a complementary imaging modality to CXR in the screening procedure to detect past and LTBI infection in specific subgroups of patients who have increased risk for TB reactivation, including those scheduled for medical treatment with biological drugs.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it