Interferon release does not add discriminatory value to smear-negative HIV–tuberculosis algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical algorithms for evaluating HIV-infected individuals for tuberculosis (TB) prior to isoniazid preventive therapy (IPT) perform poorly, and interferon-γ release assays (IGRAs) have moderate accuracy for active TB. It is unclear whether, when used as adjunct tests, IGRAs add any clinical discriminatory value for active TB diagnosis in the pre-IPT assessment. 779 sputum smear-negative HIV-infected persons, established on or about to commence combined antiretroviral therapy (ART), were screened for TB prior to IPT. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression was used to develop clinical prediction models. The discriminatory ability was assessed by receiver operator characteristic area under the curve (AUC). QuantiFERON-TB Gold in-tube (QFT-GIT) was evaluated. The prevalence of smear-negative TB by culture was 6.4% (95% CI 4.9-8.4%). Used alone, QFT-GIT and the tuberculin skin test (TST) had comparable performance; the post-test probability of disease based on single negative tests was 3-4%. In a multivariable model, the QFT-GIT test did not improve the ability of a clinical algorithm, which included not taking ART, weight <60 kg, no prior history of TB, any one positive TB symptom/sign (cough ≥ 2 weeks) and CD4+ count <250 cells per mm(3), to discriminate smear-negative culture-positive and -negative TB (72% to 74%; AUC comparison p=0.33). The TST marginally improved the discriminatory ability of the clinical model (to 77%, AUC comparison p=0.04). QFT-GIT does not improve the discriminatory ability of current TB screening clinical algorithms used to evaluate HIV-infected individuals for TB ahead of preventive therapy. Evaluation of new TB diagnostics for clinical relevance should follow a multivariable process that goes beyond test accuracy.
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 | 0.062 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".