Induced Sputum for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis: Is It Useful in Clinical Practice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) is challenging in patients who are unable to spontaneously expectorate. Published evidence suggests that induced sputum (IS) is the least invasive and most cost-effective method of diagnosis, and should be used before fibre-optic bronchoscopy (FOB). METHODS: The medical records of 337 adults treated for PTB in northern Alberta between 1997 and 2007 were reviewed to determine whether local practice patterns reflect the evidence. Microbiological data were collected from the Provincial Laboratory for Public Health. Demographic information was collected from the patients' charts. RESULTS: A total of 8.5% (26 of 307) of PTB patients had IS collected, whereas 35.8% (110 of 307) underwent FOB. Among FOB patients, 56.4% (62 of 110) had no sputum sent before the procedure and 29% (18 of 62) of these patients were smear positive. Only five patients referred for FOB had IS sent previously. There were no demographic factors predictive of IS use, whereas being an inpatient at a teaching facility or having a nodule or mass on chest x-ray was predictive of FOB referral. Because so few IS samples were available, not all patients had spontaneously expectorated sputum, IS and FOB tests performed; thus, the calculated yields were not comparable with one another. CONCLUSIONS: Despite published evidence recommending IS collection before FOB referral in suspected PTB patients, clinicians in our health region appeared to prefer early FOB over IS by a large margin. This practice pattern is less cost effective and exposes patients and health care workers to greater risk. Further research is needed to identify the reasons for the underuse of sputum induction.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".