Risk of active tuberculosis among people with diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To assess the risk of active TB in people with DM and the factors associated with this risk. Methods Systematic review and meta‐analysis. We searched the literature for studies that reported the effect of DM on TB controlled for the effect of age. Studies that had not established the diagnosis of DM prior to detecting active TB were excluded. Study quality was assessed by Newcastle‐Ottawa scale and we conducted a meta‐analysis using random‐effects models. Results Of 14 studies (eight cohort and six case–control studies) that involved 22 616 623 participants met the selection criteria and were included in the analysis. There was substantial variation between studies in the estimates of the effect of DM on TB . However, the pooled estimates from seven high‐quality studies showed that diabetic people have a 1.5‐fold increased risk of developing active TB vs . those without DM (95% CI 1.28–1.76), with relatively small heterogeneity ( I 2 = 44%). The increased risk of TB was observed predominantly among DM populations with poor glycaemic control. Conclusion There is evidence suggesting an increased risk of developing TB among people with DM , and that improving glycaemic control in DM patients would reduce the risk of developing TB . An integrated approach is needed to control the dual burden of DM and TB .
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".