MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2921846840 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.092

A93 LATENT TUBERCULOSIS SCREENING PRIOR TO BIOLOGICAL THERAPY IN INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE PATIENTS: IS THE CHEST X-RAY ALWAYS NEEDED?

2019· article· en· W2921846840 on OpenAlexaff
Arafa Djalal, Justin Côté-Daigneault

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMycobacterium research and diagnosis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLatent tuberculosisTuberculosisTuberculinInternal medicinePopulationInflammatory bowel diseaseCrohn's diseaseDiseaseMycobacterium tuberculosisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients undergoing treatment with biological therapy are at increased risk of developing opportunistic infections such as tuberculosis (TB). Screening for latent tuberculosis is mandatory before initiating biological therapy such as Anti-TNF alpha. Most IBD guidelines include QuantiFERON Tb Gold (QTF), Tuberculin Skin Test (TST) and/or chest X-ray as screening methods. The primary objective of this study was to compare if the chest X-ray in combination with QTF or TST is better in screening latent tuberculosis than QTF or TST alone in our IBD population. We performed a retrospective descriptive monocentric study including in our source population all patients who started a biological treatment, followed at the IBD clinic of the CHUM between 2016 and 2018. We used the local IBD clinic database to collect the data. The study population included all patients who had a chest X-ray and QTF or TST done in the days, weeks or months preceding the institution of a treatment with biologics. The primary objective was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of a screening with QTF or TST alone as opposed to the gold standard (a combined screening that includes a chest X-ray). All patients in our source population were included in the study (n=164). Among them, 144 patients were screened with a chest X-ray plus QTF and 20 patients with a chest X-ray plus TST (53% men, 72% with Crohn’s, 82% Caucasian). All patients in the TST group (n=20) had a negative screening with both TST and chest X-ray. In the QTF group, 132 had a negative result, 10 had an indeterminate result and 2 had a positive result. Among patients with a positive QTF, the chest X-ray was negative and were considered positive for latent tuberculosis by the treating team. No cases of latent tuberculosis were found in the negative and indeterminate QTF groups. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of the QTF test were all equal to 100% compared to the gold standard. A median follow up of 11.4 months after initiating biological therapy did not highlight any new cases of active or latent tuberculosis within our population. In our population including mostly Caucasian patients without other risk factors for latent TB, the chest X-ray in combination to QTF or TST was not better than QTF or TST alone. These results should make us think over the current clinical practices that include chest X-ray in all patients for latent TB screening. None

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicMycobacterium research and diagnosis→French-language works237,207→