Review: heterogeneous studies show that nucleic acid amplification tests accurately rule in but do not rule out TB
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dinnes J, Deeks J, Kunst H, et al . A systematic review of rapid diagnostic tests for the detection of tuberculosis infection. Health Technol Assess 2007;11:1–314. [OpenUrl][1][PubMed][2][Web of Science][3] Q In patients who have tuberculosis (TB), what is the accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★★☆ Infectious disease ★★★★★★☆ Respirology ★★★★★★☆ ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Data sources: 10 healthcare databases and 11 grey literature databases (to Mar 2004), trial registries, meeting abstracts and conference proceedings, Science Citation Index, reference lists, experts, and manufacturers of tests. ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Study selection and assessment: English language studies that compared a rapid test for detecting pulmonary and extra-pulmonary TB with a reference standard and reported sufficient data to construct a 2 x 2 table. 212 studies (368 data sets) were included. Quality assessment criteria included use of an appropriate gold standard and blinding of test interpretation. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Outcomes: sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. The table shows the results for groups of tests … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DHealth%2Btechnology%2Bassessment%2B%2528Winchester%252C%2BEngland%2529%26rft.stitle%253DHealth%2BTechnol%2BAssess%26rft.aulast%253DDundar%26rft.auinit1%253DY.%26rft.volume%253D11%26rft.issue%253D40%26rft.spage%253D1%26rft.epage%253D144%26rft.atitle%253DTaxanes%2Bfor%2Bthe%2Badjuvant%2Btreatment%2Bof%2Bearly%2Bbreast%2Bcancer%253A%2Bsystematic%2Breview%2Band%2Beconomic%2Bevaluation.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17903394%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=17903394&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F12%2F4%2F121.atom [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000243745700001&link_type=ISI [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
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 | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".