Point-of-Care Urine Tests for Smoking Status and Isoniazid Treatment Monitoring in Adult Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Poor adherence to isoniazid (INH) preventive therapy (IPT) is an impediment to effective control of latent tuberculosis (TB) infection. TB patients who smoke are at higher risk of latent TB infection, active disease, and TB mortality, and may have lower adherence to their TB medications. The objective of our study was to validate IsoScreen and SmokeScreen (GFC Diagnostics, UK), two point-of-care tests for monitoring INH intake and determining smoking status. The tests could be used together in the same individual to help identify patients with a high-risk profile and provide a tailored treatment plan that includes medication management, adherence interventions, and smoking cessation programs. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: 200 adult outpatients attending the TB and/or the smoking cessation clinic were recruited at the Montreal Chest Institute. Sensitivity and specificity were measured for each test against the corresponding composite reference standard. Test reliability was measured using kappa statistic for intra-rater and inter-rater agreement. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to explore possible covariates that might be related to false-positive and false-negative test results. IsoScreen had a sensitivity of 93.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 80.3, 98.2) and specificity of 98.7% (94.8, 99.8). IsoScreen had intra-rater agreement (kappa) of 0.75 (0.48, 0.94) and inter-rater agreement of 0.61 (0.27, 0.90). SmokeScreen had a sensitivity of 69.2% (56.4, 79.8), specificity of 81.6% (73.0, 88.0), intra-rater agreement of 0.77 (0.56, 0.94), and inter-rater agreement of 0.66 (0.42, 0.88). False-positive SmokeScreen tests were strongly associated with INH treatment. CONCLUSIONS: IsoScreen had high validity and reliability, whereas SmokeScreen had modest validity and reliability. SmokeScreen tests did not perform well in a population receiving INH due to the association between INH treatment and false-positive SmokeScreen test results. Development of the next generation SmokeScreen assay should account for this potential interference.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".