MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111937615 · doi:10.1136/ebmed-2011-0014

People aged above 65 treated for latent tuberculosis are at increased risk of admission for a hepatic event compared with untreated controls

2011· letter· en· W2111937615 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Philip LoBue

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2011
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLatent tuberculosisAdverse effectIsoniazidTuberculosisInternal medicinePopulationGastroenterologyPediatricsPathologyEnvironmental healthMycobacterium tuberculosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on: Smith BM, Schwartzman K, Bartlett G, et al. Adverse events associated with treatment of latent tuberculosis in the general population. CMAJ 2011;183:E173–9.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Treatment of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is an important tuberculosis prevention and control strategy, especially in high-resource countries. The effectiveness of LTBI treatment, which usually consists of isoniazid (also known as isonicotinylhydrazine (INH)) for 6–9 months, is limited by poor patient adherence because of long treatment duration and adverse effects. The most common serious adverse effect of INH is hepatotoxicity, which increases with age and can be fatal.1 A meta-analysis of six studies found that the pooled rate of INH-associated hepatotoxicity was 0.6%.2 Smith and colleagues conducted a population-based evaluation of serious adverse events of LTBI treatment in Quebec, Canada. Data were abstracted from administrative databases of the government … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCMAJ%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1503%252Fcmaj.091824%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F21220436%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/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=cmaj&resid=183/3/E173&atom=%2Febmed%2F16%2F6%2F169.atom

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalmedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207