Initial Drug Regimen for Active Tuberculosis Cases in Montreal, 1995‐1998
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the proportion of tuberculosis (TB) cases initially treated with the recommended four-drug regimen of isoniazid (INH), rifampin (RIF), pyrazinamide (PZA) and ethambutol (EMB) or streptomycin; and to identify factors associated with the choice of initial therapy. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis of surveillance data obtained by TB case notifications from physicians and microbiology laboratories. SETTING: The island of Montreal (with a population of 1,854,435 people). STUDY POPULATION: All TB cases reported between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 1998. OUTCOME MEASURE: The proportion of TB cases initially treated with a four-drug regimen by sex, age, country of birth, site of disease and year of reporting. MAIN RESULTS: Seven hundred forty-one cases were reported during the study period. Among the 687 analyzed cases, 406 (59.1%) received the recommended initial four-drug regimen (INH-RIF-PZA-EMB), 187 (27.2%) received an INH-RIF-PZA regimen, 61 (8.9%) received an INH-RIF-EMB regimen and 33 (4.8%) received an INH-RIF regimen only. In a logistical regression model, a four-drug regimen was significantly associated with respiratory disease (odds ratio [OR] 4.48; 95% CI 3.15 to 6.39), age younger than 65 years (OR 2.32; 95% CI 1.55 to 3.45), being foreign-born (OR 1.62; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.48) and later year of reporting (OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.47). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of TB cases initially treated with a four-drug regimen has increased steadily since 1995, reaching 65% in 1998. However, given the rate of INH resistance in Montreal, efforts to promote the use of the initial four-drug regimen must continue.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".