Role of medical colleges in TB control under RNTCP - Five years experience in Puducherry, S. India (2010 -2014)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A substantial proportion of patients with TB are managed at medical colleges across India. The RNTCP of Govt. of India conceived and implemented the unique experiment over a decade ago of involving the academicians who constitute the faculty in the public health programme for TB control by a mechanism of National, Zonal and State level Task Forces. A periodic review of role of Medical college in TB control is important to monitor the progress. Methods & Materials: Puducherry at U.T. in Southern India with a population of 1.2 million has nine medical colleges, two are government and seven are private institutions involved in implementing the RNTCP and report their progress in a structured format every quarter to the State Task Force (Puducherry) which is reviewed and feedback provided to all concerned. A consolidated report submitted to the Zonal and National Task Forces of RNTCP. A record based study of the RNTCP STF Quarterly reports from 2010 to 2014 was conducted to find the proportion of TB patients screened, the proportion of sputum smear positive, negative and extra pulmonary TB patients diagnosed, the proportion of patients referred for treatment and proportion of pre-treatment loss to follow up among them. Results: During the study period in Puducherry U.T. a total of 1,14,720 TB suspects were screened for sputum AFB of which 67, 174 (58.5%) was in the 9 Medical colleges this ranged from 45.5% to 64.5%. Among those screened, 8,183 (12.2%) were sputum positive TB cases, 3,487 (5.2%) sputum negative TB cases and 2,079 (3.1%) were extra-pulmonary. Thus a total of 13, 749 TB diagnosed cases, 398 (2.9%) were initiated on treatment at the Medical College and most referred for treatment as per RNTCP guidelines. It was noted that 11% of sputum positive TB patients had pre-treatment loss to follow. Conclusion: Medical colleges in Pondicherry have an important role under RNTCP in TB case finding, initiation of treatment and referral of TB patients. Strengthening of the referral mechanism is required to prevent the pre-treatment loss to follow up of TB patients.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".