International Standards for Tuberculosis Care: revisiting the cornerstones of tuberculosis care and control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tuberculosis (TB) remains an enormous global health problem. There are 8-9 million new cases and 2 million deaths from TB annually. Despite the overwhelming burden of disease, the basic principles of care for persons with, or suspected of having, TB are the same worldwide: a diagnosis should be established promptly and accurately, standardized treatment regimens of proven efficacy should be used together with appropriate treatment support and supervision, the response to treatment should be monitored, and the essential public health responsibilities must be carried out. As an approach to improving the care of patients with TB, an evidence-based document, the International Standards for Tuberculosis Care (ISTC) was developed and has been endorsed by more than 30 international and national agencies. This special report introduces the ISTC and discusses the fact that accurate diagnosis and effective treatment are not only essential for good patient care, they are the key elements in the public health response to TB and are the cornerstone of TB control. With the recent emergence of extensively drug-resistant TB, there is an urgent need to ensure globally that standards of TB care are based on rigorous scientific findings, are clear and well understood, and are accessible to and applied by all types of healthcare providers in all corners of the world.
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 | 0.043 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".