Factors Associated with Noncompletion of Latent Tuberculosis Infection Treatment in an Inner‐City Population in Edmonton, Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A limited number of studies have been published that examine treatment completion rates and interventions used to increase treatment completion within an inner-city population. The purpose of the present study was to determine the rate of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) treatment completion in an inner-city population in Edmonton, Alberta, and to identify factors that correlated with treatment completion. A retrospective chart review was conducted involving patients who started LTBI treatment between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2010 in Edmonton's inner city. A total of 77 patients started treatment and 57 (74%) patients completed LTBI treatment. Homelessness was the only variable that was significantly associated with incomplete treatment (OR 8.0 [95% CI 1.4 to 45.6]) and it remained significant when controlling for drug use (adjusted OR 6.5 [95% CI 1.1 to 38.8]). While the present study demonstrated treatment completion rates comparable with or better than those described in the general population, it highlighted the need for continued emphasis on interventions aimed at improving outcomes within homeless populations.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".