A Systematic Review of the Clinical Significance of Pulmonary Mycobacterium kansasii Isolates in HIV Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guidelines recommend treating HIV-infected patients with pulmonary Mycobacterium kansasii infection only in the presence of multiple positive cultures and clinical and radiographic abnormalities. Some authors suggest a single positive culture warrants treatment. A systematic literature review was done to determine whether HIV-infected patients who had M. kansasii isolated from respiratory specimens may have an indolent infection (often referred to as colonization) not requiring treatment and to determine the utility of diagnostic criteria in distinguishing disease from indolent infection. Sixteen studies were included, with at least 573 patients: mean age 44 years; 91% male; 64% men who had sex with men; 35% injection drug users; and median CD4 lymphocyte count of 2-381 cells/microL. The median rate of indolent infection was 8%. Of the few patients who did not satisfy diagnostic criteria and were left untreated, outcomes were generally favorable. Overall, survival was longer in treated patients (mean 12 vs. 4 months). Indolent pulmonary infection with M. kansasii may exist in the setting of HIV, but published data do not provide adequate information to identify such patients. It is unclear whether unfulfilled diagnostic criteria necessarily imply the absence of disease in this context.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".