Pulmonary involvement in patients presenting with extra-pulmonary tuberculosis: thinking beyond a normal chest x-ray
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recognition of pulmonary involvement in extra-pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) may be an important public health issue, as smear-negative pulmonary TB is responsible for about 17% of new infections. Pulmonary TB can be present despite a normal chest x-ray (CXR), even in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-negative patients. In this retrospective clinical audit, we reviewed a case series of HIV-negative patients with extra-pulmonary tuberculosis to identify the proportion with concurrent pulmonary TB despite an unremarkable CXR. METHODS: Clinical notes, microbiology results and CXR reports were reviewed from consecutive patients treated at Auckland City Hospital for extra-pulmonary TB from January 2007 to July 2010. RESULTS: Of the sample of 103 patients with extra-pulmonary TB, the majority of patients were born in an Asian country (n=70; 68%). The commonest presentation of extra-pulmonary TB was lymphadenopathy (n=51; 50%), followed by pleural (n=24; 23%) and bone (n=6; 6%) disease. Extra-pulmonary TB was diagnosed by biopsy or excision of the extra-pulmonary site in the majority (n=74; 72%), and by sputum testing alone in 26 (25%). The majority had CXR abnormalities (n=76; 74%). In the group with a normal CXR (n=27), 55% (n=15) had sputum cultures performed. In total, 18% (n=5) of patients with extra-pulmonary TB and a normal CXR had pulmonary TB, of whom two were smear positive. DISCUSSION: In patients with extra-pulmonary TB, sputum testing should be considered to detect concurrent pulmonary TB even if a CXR is normal, especially in immunosuppressed or symptomatic patients. This may aid diagnosis and determine infectivity and consequent public health action.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".