Yield of smear, culture and amplification tests from repeated sputum induction for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the yield of repeated sputum induction for the diagnosis of active tuberculosis in patients who do not produce spontaneous sputum, or with smear-negative spontaneous samples. METHODS: Induced sputum was examined with fluorescent microscopy, two amplification methods (PCR Amplicor MTB, and MTD2), and cultured for mycobacteria using liquid (Bactec 12B) and Lowenstein-Jensen media. Bronchoscopy and collection of other specimens were performed at the discretion of the treating physician. RESULTS: A total of 1115 sputum inductions performed in 500 patients without adverse events yielded an adequate specimen in 1113 (99.8%), and microbiological confirmation in 43 of 44 (98%) culture-positive active TB cases. Yield increased with repeated sputum induction. The cumulative yield for acid-fast bacilli smear and mycobacterial culture was 64% and 70% respectively for one, 81% and 91% for two, 91% and 99% for three, and 98% and 100% for four induced samples. Yield of PCR also increased with the greater number of induced samples tested. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated sputum induction could considerably improve diagnostic accuracy for pulmonary TB.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".