Evaluation of QuantiFERON-TB Gold-Plus in Health Care Workers in a Low-Incidence Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Although launched in 2015, little is known about the accuracy of QuantiFERON-TB Gold-Plus (QFT-Plus) for diagnosis of latent M. tuberculosis infection (LTBI). Unlike its predecessor, QFT-Plus utilizes two antigen tubes to elicit an immune response from CD4+and CD8+T lymphocytes. We conducted a cross-sectional study in low-risk health care workers (HCWs) at a single U.S. center to compare QFT-Plus to QuantiFERON-TB Gold in-tube (QFT). A total of 989 HCWs were tested with both QFT and QFT-Plus. Risk factors for LTBI were obtained from a questionnaire. QFT-Plus was considered positive if either antigen tube 1 (TB1) or TB2 tested positive, per the manufacturer's recommendations, or if both TB1 and TB2 tested positive, using a conservative definition. Results were compared using Cohen's kappa and linear regression, respectively. Agreement of QFT with QFT-Plus was high, at 95.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.3 to 96.9; kappa, 0.57). The majority of discordant results between QFT and QFT-Plus TB1 (84.8%) and QFT and QFT-Plus TB2 (88.6%) fell within the range of 0.2 to 0.7 IU/ml. The positivity rate in 626 HCWs with no identifiable risk factors and no self-reported history of positive LTBI tests was 2.1% (CI, 1.0 to 3.2) and 3.0% (CI, 1.7 to 4.3) with QFT and QFT-Plus, respectively. A conservative definition of a QFT-Plus-positive result yielded a positivity rate of 1.0% (CI, 0.2 to 1.7;Pvalue of 0.0002 versus QFT-Plus and 0.07 versus QFT). On follow-up testing, of 11 HCWs with discordant QFT-Plus results, 90.9% (10/11) had a negative QFT result. The QFT-Plus assay showed a high degree of agreement with QFT in U.S. HCWs. A conservative interpretation of QFT-Plus eliminated nearly all nonreproducible positive results in low-risk HCWs. Larger studies are needed to validate the latter finding and to more clearly define conditions under which a conservative interpretation can be used to minimize nonreproducible positive results in low-risk 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 | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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, 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".