The Scope and Impact of Treatment of Latent Tuberculosis Infection in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: The scope of treatment of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in the United States and Canada is unknown. Identifying the types of clinics that administer such treatment and patients who receive it could guide resource utilization and improve treatment initiation and completion. OBJECTIVES: Estimate the number of persons started on LTBI treatment; describe the types of clinics that treat LTBI. METHODS: The Tuberculosis Epidemiologic Studies Consortium, consisting of 19 United States and 2 Canadian sites, conducted a survey among clinics that initiated LTBI treatment for>or=10 patients in 2002. RESULTS: Study catchment areas from the 19 United States sites represented 8.6% of the United States population and 12.7% of all tuberculosis cases in 2000. An estimated 37,857 patients started LTBI treatment during 2002 at 244 clinics surveyed. Of these treatment starts, 29,970 (79%) occurred at general public health clinics; immigrant/refugee clinics (2,409; 6.4%) and correctional/detention facilities (2,325; 6.1%) were the next most common sites. Based on these data, United States tuberculosis case rates, and United States population data, the estimated total number of LTBI treatment starts in the United States was 291,000-433,000. When the 37,145 persons who initiated LTBI treatment in the United States were extrapolated to the entire United States population, with a 5% lifetime risk of tuberculosis without treatment, and 20-60% treatment effectiveness, approximately 4,000-11,000 tuberculosis cases were prevented in the United States. CONCLUSIONS: LTBI treatment is initiated among a substantial number of persons in the United States and Canada, primarily in the public sector. Treatment of LTBI can significantly decrease the tuberculosis burden.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".