A Case of Active Tuberculosis in a Cabin Crew: The Results of Contact Tracing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Transmission of communicable diseases on board aircraft is of considerable concern for passengers and aircrew. Previously published estimates of risk of tuberculosis (TB) transmission have been highly variable. Furthermore, very few studies have been published for active TB in aircrew. METHODS: The public health authorities advised the Medical Advisor of an airline that a cabin crewmember had been diagnosed with active TB. Contact tracing was done for the cabin crew who worked with the index case for more than 8 h. Cabin crewmembers were divided in two groups according to their exposure and had one tuberculin skin test (TST) more than 8 wk after the last exposure. Those with a TST > or = 5 mm have been recommended to have a QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT) assay. RESULTS: Among the 56 identified contacts, 32 agreed to be evaluated, of whom 6 (19%) had a TST > or = 5 mm. Of those six, four underwent a QFT with one positive result. None had active TB. The percentages of positives in the two exposure groups were similar. All the positive contacts were born in Canada in the period when the childhood Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination program was in effect. DISCUSSION: The same percentage of positives in the two exposure groups, the proportion of positive contacts below the expected rate in Canadians, and the high proportion of QFT negative among the TST positive contacts suggest that transmission of TB to the cabin crew is unlikely.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".