Performance of Purified Antigens for Serodiagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis: a Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Serological antibody detection tests for tuberculosis may offer the potential to improve diagnosis. Recent meta-analyses have shown that commercially available tests have variable accuracies and a limited clinical role. We reviewed the immunodiagnostic potential of antigens evaluated in research laboratories (in-house) for the serodiagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis and conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of comparable antigens. Selection criteria included the participation of at least 25 pulmonary tuberculosis patients and the use of purified antigens. Studies evaluating 38 kDa, MPT51, malate synthase, culture filtrate protein 10, TbF6, antigen 85B, alpha-crystallin, 2,3-diacyltrehalose, 2,3,6-triacyltrehalose, 2,3,6,6'-tetraacyltrehalose 2'-sulfate, cord factor, and TbF6 plus DPEP (multiple antigen) were included in the meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that (i) in sputum smear-positive patients, sensitivities significantly >or=50% were provided for recombinant malate synthase (73%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 58 to 85) and TbF6 plus DPEP (75%; 95% CI, 50 to 91); (ii) protein antigens achieved high specificities; (iii) among the lipid antigens, cord factor had the best overall performance (sensitivity, 69% [95% CI, 28 to 94]; specificity, 91% [95% CI, 78 to 97]); (iv) compared with the sensitivities achieved with single antigens (median sensitivity, 53%; range, 2% to 100%), multiple antigens yielded higher sensitivities (median sensitivity, 76%; range, 16% to 96%); (v) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients who are sputum smear positive, antibodies to several single and multiple antigens were detected; and (vi) data on seroreactivity to antigens in sputum smear-negative or pediatric patients were insufficient. Potential candidate antigens for an antibody detection test for pulmonary tuberculosis in HIV-infected and -uninfected patients have been identified, although no antigen achieves sufficient sensitivity to replace sputum smear microscopy. Combinations of select antigens provide higher sensitivities than single antigens. The use of a case-control design with healthy controls for the majority of studies was a limitation of the review. Efforts are needed to improve the methodological quality of tuberculosis diagnostic studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".