Strategies for halting the rise of multidrug resistant TB epidemics: assessing the effect of early case detection and isolation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The increasing rates of multidrug resistant TB (MDR-TB) have posed the question of whether control programs under enhanced directly observed treatment, short-course (DOTS-Plus) are sufficient or implemented optimally. Despite enhanced efforts on early case detection and improved treatment regimens, direct transmission of MDR-TB remains a major hurdle for global TB control. Methods: We developed an agent-based simulation model of TB dynamics to evaluate the effect of transmission reduction measures on the incidence of MDR-TB. We implemented a 15-day isolation period following the start of treatment in active TB cases. The model was parameterized with the latest estimates derived from the published literature. Results: We found that if high rates (over 90%) of TB case identification are achieved within 4 weeks of developing active TB, then a 15-day patient isolation strategy with 50% effectiveness in interrupting disease transmission leads to 10% reduction in the incidence of MDR-TB over 10 years. If transmission is fully prevented, the rise of MDR-TB can be halted within 10 years, but the temporal reduction of MDR-TB incidence remains below 20% in this period. Conclusions: The impact of transmission reduction measures on the TB incidence depends critically on the rates and timelines of case identification. The high costs and adverse effects associated with MDR-TB treatment warrant increased efforts and investments on measures that can interrupt direct transmission through early case detection.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".