MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888540616 · doi:10.1183/13993003.00946-2018

An evaluation framework for new tests that predict progression from tuberculosis infection to clinical disease

2018· article· en· W2888540616 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sandra V. Kik, Samuel G. Schumacher, Daniela María Cirillo, Gavin Churchyard, Catharina Boehme, Delia Goletti, Molebogeng X. Rangaka, Claudia M. Denkinger, Christian Lienhardt, Christopher Gilpin, Alberto Matteelli, Frank Cobelens

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean and Developing Countries Clinical Trials PartnershipLungenliga SchweizUniversity of Cape TownEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and ControlUniversity of OxfordLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineMcGill UniversityBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsTuberculosisTest (biology)DiseaseMedicineMycobacterium tuberculosisIntensive care medicinePopulationEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

who have incipient disease and are likely to develop clinical tuberculosis (TB) in the near future to allow for targeted preventive treatment beyond the current risk groups. Recently, a target product profile was developed that outlines the minimal and optimal characteristics for such an incipient TB test. We describe an evaluation framework for generating evidence to inform the development of policy guidance for the use of such a new test by the World Health Organization. Two research objectives are addressed. 1) The predictive ability of an incipient TB test should be assessed in clinical evaluation studies that include the intended target population and follow-up of sufficient duration to observe whether individuals do or do not progress to clinical TB disease. 2) Studies are needed to evaluate the test under routine programmatic conditions and measure its impact on patient- or health-system-important outcomes. For both research objectives, study designs, methods and analysis are described, with the intent to inform the clinical development plans of test manufacturers, researchers and funders.

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)0.316
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.235
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3160.235
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0100.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.311 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations46
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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