Tuberculosis Screening of Immigrants to Low-Prevalence Countries: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All adult immigrant applicants to Canada undergo chest radiographic screening for tuberculosis (TB). Tuberculin skin testing could reduce the number of chest X-rays, and identify more candidates for prophylaxis. We modeled the cost-effectiveness of chest radiography and tuberculin skin testing for TB prevention over a 20-yr time frame, among three simulated cohorts of 20-yr-old immigrants. Compared with no screening, radiographic screening prevented 4.3% of expected active TB cases in the highest risk cohort (50% TB-infected, 10% human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] seroprevalence), and 8.0% in the lowest risk cohort (5% TB-infected, 1% HIV seroprevalence). Tuberculin skin testing further reduced the expected incidence 8.0% and 4.0%, respectively. Compared with no screening, radiographic screening cost $3,943 Canadian per active TB case prevented in the highest risk cohort, and $236,496 per case prevented in the lowest risk group. Compared with radiographic screening, mass tuberculin skin testing cost $32,601 per additional case prevented in the highest risk group, and $68,799 per additional case prevented in the lowest risk group. Chest radiographic screening of young immigrants from countries with a high prevalence of TB is a relatively inexpensive means of TB prevention. Tuberculin skin testing is considerably less cost-effective. For immigrants from low-prevalence countries, both interventions are extremely costly with negligible impact. The cost-effectiveness of either strategy would be greatly enhanced by increased adherence to chemoprophylaxis recommendations. Radiographic screening of groups with a high prevalence of tuberculous infection will then likely save money.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".