Rapid Diagnosis of Childhood Pulmonary Tuberculosis by Xpert MTB/RIF Assay Using Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay on childhood pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) using bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), we evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of Xpert MTB/RIF assay using BALF in comparison with acid-fast bacilli (AFB) microscopy and Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) culture for diagnosing childhood PTB using Chinese "composite clinical reference standard" (CCRS) as reference standard. Two hundred fifty-five children with suspected PTB were enrolled at Beijing Children's Hospital from September 2010 to July 2013. Compared with Chinese CCRS, the sensitivity of AFB microscopy, MTB culture, and Xpert MTB/RIF assay was 8.4%, 28.9%, and 53.0%, respectively. The specificity of three assays was all 100%. Xpert MTB/RIF assay could detect 33.9% of cases with negative MTB culture, and 48.7% of cases with negative AFB microscopy. Younger age (<3 years), absence of BCG scar, and contact with TB patient were found significantly associated with a positive result of Xpert MTB/RIF assay. In conclusion, Xpert MTB/RIF assay using BALF can assist in diagnosing childhood PTB much faster when fiberoptic bronchoscopy is necessary according to the chest radiograph.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".