MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100473102 · doi:10.1183/09031936.00098509

Predictive value for progression to tuberculosis by IGRA and TST in immigrant contacts

2009· article· en· W2100473102 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra V. Kik, Willeke P. J. Franken, M. Mensen, Frank Cobelens, M. Kamphorst, Sandra M. Arend, Connie Erkens, Agnes Gebhard, Martien W. Borgdorff, Suzanne Verver

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersUniversiteit Leiden
KeywordsMedicineTuberculinTuberculosisInterferon γPredictive valueInternal medicineSputumGastroenterologyInterferon gammaPathologyCytokine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors determined the positive predictive value (PPV) for progression to tuberculosis (TB) of two interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs), QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-tube (QFT-GIT) and T-SPOT.TB, and the tuberculin skin test (TST) in immigrants contacts. Immigrant close contacts of sputum smear-positive TB patients were included when aged > or =16 yrs and their TST result was > or =5 mm 0 or 3 months after diagnosis of the index patient. Contacts were followed for the next 2 yrs for development of TB disease. Of 339 immigrant contacts with TST > or =5 mm, 324 and 299 had valid results of QFT-GIT and T-SPOT.TB, respectively. Nine contacts developed active TB. One patient had not been tested with TST, while another patient had not been tested with QFT-GIT and T-SPOT.TB. The PPV for progression to TB during this period was 9/288 = 3.1% (95% CI 1.3-5.0%) for TST > or =10 mm, 7/184 = 3.8% (95% CI 1.7-5.9%) for TST > or =15 mm, 5/178 = 2.8% (95% CI 1.0-4.6%) for QFT-GIT and 6/181 = 3.3% (95% CI 1.3-5.3%) for T-SPOT.TB. Sensitivity was 100%, 88%, 63% and 75%, respectively. The predictive values of QFT-GIT, T-SPOT.TB and TST for progression to TB disease among immigrant close contacts were comparable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations146
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207