MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803184912 · doi:10.1183/13993003.00591-2018

Screening for tuberculosis in migrants and visitors from high-incidence settings: present and future perspectives

2018· review· en· W2803184912 on OpenAlexaff
Claudia C. Dobler, Greg J. Fox, Paul Douglas, Kerri Viney, Faiz Ahmad Khan, Zelalem Temesgen, Ben J. Marais

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilUniversity College London
KeywordsMedicineRefugeeTuberculosisIncidence (geometry)Environmental healthDiseasePediatricsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In most settings with a low incidence of tuberculosis (TB), foreign-born people make up the majority of TB cases, but the distribution of the TB risk among different migrant populations is often poorly quantified. In addition, screening practices for TB disease and latent TB infection (LTBI) vary widely. Addressing the risk of TB in international migrants is an essential component of TB prevention and care efforts in low-incidence countries, and strategies to systematically screen for, diagnose, treat and prevent TB among this group contribute to national and global TB elimination goals. This review provides an overview and critical assessment of TB screening practices that are focused on migrants and visitors from high to low TB incidence countries, including pre-migration screening and post-migration follow-up of those deemed to be at an increased risk of developing TB. We focus mainly on migrants who enter the destination country via application for a long-stay visa, as well as asylum seekers and refugees, but briefly consider issues related to short-term visitors and those with long-duration multiple-entry visas. Issues related to the screening of children and screening for LTBI are also explored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207