T-Cell Assays for Tuberculosis Infection: Deriving Cut-Offs for Conversions Using Reproducibility Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although interferon-gamma release assays (IGRA) are promising alternatives to the tuberculin skin test, interpretation of repeated testing results is hampered by lack of evidence on optimal cut-offs for conversions and reversions. A logical start is to determine the within-person variability of T-cell responses during serial testing. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We performed a pilot study in India, to evaluate the short-term reproducibility of QuantiFERON-TB Gold In Tube assay (QFT) among 14 healthcare workers (HCWs) who underwent 4 serial QFT tests on day 0, 3, 9 and 12. QFT ELISA was repeated twice on the same sets of specimens. We assessed two types of reproducibility: 1) test-retest reproducibility (between-test variability), and 2) within-person reproducibility over time. Test-retest reproducibility: with dichotomous test results, extremely high concordance was noticed between two tests performed on the same sets of specimens: of the 56 samples, the test and re-test results agreed for all but 2 individuals (kappa = 0.94). Discordance was noted in subjects who had IFN-gamma values around the cut-off point, with both increases and decreases noted. With continuous IFN-gamma results, re-test results tended to produce higher estimates of IFN-gamma than the original test. Within-person reproducibility: when continuous IFN-gamma data were analyzed, the within-person reproducibility was moderate to high. While persons with negative QFT results generally stayed negative, positive results tended to vary over time. Our data showed that increases of more than 16% in the IFN-gamma levels are statistically improbable in the short-term. CONCLUSIONS: Conservatively assuming that long-term variability might be at least twice higher than short-term, we hypothesize that a QFT conversion requires two conditions to be met: 1) change from negative to positive result, and 2) at least 30% increase in the baseline IFN-gamma response. Larger studies are needed to confirm our preliminary findings, and determine the conversion thresholds for IGRAs.
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 | 0.069 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".