High prevalence of smoking among patients with suspected tuberculosis in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing evidence that tobacco smoking is an important risk factor for tuberculosis (TB). There are no data validating the accuracy of self-reported smoking in TB patients and limited data about the prevalence of smoking in TB patients from high-burden settings. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of 500 patients with suspected TB in Cape Town, South Africa. All underwent comprehensive diagnostic testing. The accuracy of their self-reported smoking status was determined against serum cotinine levels. Of the 424 patients included in the study, 56 and 60% of those with active and latent TB infection (LTBI), respectively, were current smokers. Using plasma cotinine as a reference standard, the sensitivity of self-reported smoking was 89%. No statistically significant association could be found between smoking and active TB or LTBI. In Cape Town, the prevalence of smoking among patients with suspected and confirmed TB was much higher than in the general South African population. Self-reporting is an accurate measure of smoking status. These results suggest the need to actively incorporate tobacco cessation programmes into TB services in South Africa.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".