Comparison of T-SPOT.<i>TB</i> Assay and Tuberculin Skin Test for the Evaluation of Young Children at High Risk for Tuberculosis in a Community Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We wished to compare the sensitivity of an enzyme-linked immunospot assay (T-SPOT.TB; Oxford Immunotec, Oxford, United Kingdom) and the tuberculin skin test for the detection of tuberculosis infection in very young children being evaluated for active tuberculosis in a rural community setting. METHODS: Children with a history of exposure to tuberculosis and children presenting to a local clinic or hospital with symptoms suggesting tuberculosis were admitted to a dedicated case verification ward. T-SPOT.TB testing was performed, and children were evaluated with a clinical examination, a tuberculin skin test, chest radiographs, and cultures of induced sputum and gastric lavage specimens. The diagnosis was determined by using a clinical algorithm. RESULTS: A total of 243 children (median age: 18 months) were recruited, of whom 214 (88%) had interpretable T-SPOT.TB results. Children > or =12 months of age were more likely than younger children to have positive T-SPOT.TB results, whereas tuberculin skin test results were unaffected by age. The sensitivity of the T-SPOT.TB was no better than that of the tuberculin skin test for culture-confirmed tuberculosis (50% and 80%, respectively) and was poorer for the combined group of culture-confirmed and clinically probable tuberculosis (40% and 52%, respectively). For the 50 children clinically categorized as not having tuberculosis, the specificity of both the T-SPOT.TB and the tuberculin skin test was 84%. CONCLUSIONS: For young children presenting in a community setting after exposure to tuberculosis or with symptoms suggesting tuberculosis, T-SPOT.TB cannot be used to exclude active disease. The sensitivity of this assay may be impaired for very young children.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| 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".