Relative Versus Absolute Noncontagiousness of Respiratory Tuberculosis on Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of current estimates of the noncontagiousness of sputum smear-positive respiratory tuberculosis (TB) on treatment. DESIGN: A descriptive analysis of the mycobacteriologic response to treatment. SETTING: A TB inpatient unit of a Canadian hospital. PATIENTS: Thirty-two HIV-seronegative patients with moderate to advanced sputum smear-positive respiratory TB were treated with uninterrupted, directly observed, weight-adjusted isoniazid, rifampin, and pyrazinamide. Each patient's initial isolate was drug susceptible and each patient's sputum mycobacteriology was systematically followed until 3 consecutive sputum smears were negative on 3 separate days. RESULTS: The time to smear conversion varied remarkably (range, 8 to 115 days; average, 46 days) and was influenced by sputum sampling frequency. Only 3 patients (9.4%) had smear conversions by 14 days and only 8 (25%) had smear conversions by 21 days, the average time it took for drug susceptibility test results to become available. During the first 21 days of treatment, the semiquantitative sputum smear score decreased rapidly and the time to detection of positive cultures doubled. Within the time to smear conversion, virtually all smear-positive specimens (98%) were culture positive and only 34% of the patients had culture conversions (ie, 3 consecutive negative cultures). CONCLUSION: Current estimates of the noncontagiousness of sputum smear-positive respiratory TB on treatment (for 14 days, for 21 days, or until smear conversion) are estimates of relative noncontagiousness. They do not signal absolute noncontagiousness (culture conversion). Semiquantitative smear and time-to-detection data suggest that respiratory isolation beyond 21 days of optimal treatment should be selective.
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 | 0.006 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".