MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2806088868 · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-26990-5

Impact of nicotine replacement therapy as an adjunct to anti-tuberculosis treatment and behaviour change counselling in newly diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis patients: an open-label, randomised controlled trial

2018· article· en· W2806088868 on OpenAlexaff
Surendra K. Sharma, Alladi Mohan, Achintya D. Singh, Hridesh Mishra, Sonali Jhanjee, Ravindra Mohan Pandey, Binit Kumar Singh, Rohini Sharma, Prakash Babu Pallipamu, Madhukar Pai, Keertan Dheda

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersIndian Council of Medical Research
KeywordsMedicineTuberculosisNicotineCotinineSmoking cessationRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineNicotine replacement therapyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluated the impact of intensive smoking cessation activities as an adjunct to anti-tuberculosis treatment on patient-related treatment outcomes. In this open-label, randomised controlled trial, self-reporting smokers with pulmonary tuberculosis who initiated standard anti-tuberculosis treatment were randomised to either nicotine replacement therapy and behaviour change counselling (n = 400) or counselling alone (n = 400) provided at baseline and two follow-up visits. The primary outcomes were change in TBscore at 24-weeks and culture conversion at 8-weeks. Biochemical smoking quit rates defined as serum cotinine levels <10 ng/mL and/or exhaled carbon monoxide levels <6 ppm (47·8% vs 32·4%, p-value =< 0·001) and self-reported quit rates (69.3% vs 38·7%, p-value =< 0·001) were significantly higher in the intervention arm at 24-weeks. Though the TBscores at 24 weeks (95% CI) were lower in the intervention arm [2·07 (1·98, 2·17) versus 2.12 (2·02, 2·21)], the difference was not clinically meaningful. Patients in the control arm required treatment extension more often than intervention arm (6·4% vs 2·6%, p-value = 0·02). Combining nicotine replacement therapy with behaviour change counselling resulted in significantly higher quit rates and lower cotinine levels, however, impact on patient-related (TBscore) or microbiological outcomes (culture conversion) were not seen.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicSmoking Behavior and Cessation→French-language works237,207→