School and household tuberculosis contact investigations in Swaziland: Active TB case finding in a high HIV/TB burden setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Investigation of household contacts exposed to infectious tuberculosis (TB) is widely recommended by international guidelines to identify secondary cases of TB and limit spread. There is little data to guide the use of contact investigations outside of the household, despite strong evidence that most TB infections occur outside of the home in TB high burden settings. In older adolescents, the majority of infections are estimated to occur in school. Therefore, as part of a project to increase active case finding in Swaziland, we performed school contact investigations following the identification of a student with infectious TB. METHODS: The Butimba Project identified 7 adolescent TB index cases (age 10-20) with microbiologically confirmed disease attending 6 different schools between June 2014 and March 2015. In addition to household contact investigations, Butimba Project staff worked with the Swaziland School Health Programme (SHP) to perform school contact investigations. At 6 school TB screening events, between May and October 2015, selected students underwent voluntary TB screening and those with positive symptom screens provided sputum for TB testing. RESULTS: Among 2015 student contacts tested, 177 (9%) screened positive for TB symptoms, 132 (75%) produced a sputum sample, of which zero tested positive for TB. Household contact investigations of the same index cases yielded 40 contacts; 24 (60%) screened positive for symptoms; 19 produced a sputum sample, of which one case was confirmed positive for TB. The odds ratio of developing TB following household vs. school contact exposure was significantly lower (OR 0.0, 95% CI 0.0 to 0.18, P = 0.02) after exposure in school. CONCLUSION: School-based contact investigations require further research to establish best practices in TB high burden settings. In this case, a symptom-based screening approach did not identify additional cases of tuberculosis. In comparison, household contact investigations yielded a higher percentage of contacts with positive TB screens and an additional tuberculosis case.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".