The tuberculin skin test: a comparison of ruler and calliper readings.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Mantoux tuberculin skin test (TST) is widely used to diagnose latent infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis. TST skin induration may be measured either by a transparent ruler or by a pair of callipers. We hypothesised that the type of instrument used may affect the reading. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether variability in Mantoux TST measurement is affected by the type of reading instrument. METHOD: A TST (Mantoux method) was performed among healthy adolescents. The indurations were read with among ruler and calliper by two independent readers. Limits of agreement and Kappa (κ) scores at TST positivity cut-off points were calculated. A Bland-Altman graph was constructed. RESULTS: The 95% limits of agreement between instruments ranged from -5 mm to 3 mm. The limits of agreement between readers ranged from -5 mm to 4 mm. κ scores between instruments were respectively 0.7 and 0.8 at 15 mm and 10 mm cut-offs. CONCLUSION: The variability between readers of TST indurations is not influenced by changing the reading instrument.
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 | 0.011 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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, 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".