MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948171622 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002824

Treatment of latent infection to achieve tuberculosis elimination in low-incidence countries

2019· review· en· W2948171622 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathon R. Campbell, David W. Dowdy, Kevin Schwartzman

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTuberculosisIncidence (geometry)MedicineLatent tuberculosisPublic healthExtensively drug-resistant tuberculosisDeveloping countryDeveloped countryPerspective (graphical)ImmunologyEnvironmental healthMycobacterium tuberculosisPopulationEconomic growthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

points• Tuberculosis (TB) persists in the United States, Canada, and other high-income, lowincidence countries largely because of ongoing reactivation of latent TB infection (LTBI).• TB elimination in low-incidence countries, defined as an annual incidence of �1 case per million, will require extensive screening and treatment of LTBI, including in people for whom the harms of LTBI treatment outweigh the likely benefits: for example, older foreign-born individuals with no recent travel/exposure.Ongoing migration from higher-incidence countries, as well as pockets of transmission in vulnerable subgroups such as prisoners, homeless persons, and drug users, will also continue to pose challenges for TB elimination.• Policymakers in low-incidence countries face a choice between a utilitarian approach that tolerates individual net harm to advance public health goals and a patient-centered approach that values shared decision-making but will predictably result in failure to achieve TB elimination.• While TB elimination is an important aspirational vision, the ethical implications of this goal-namely the implicit requirement to offer LTBI screening and treatment to individuals who are more likely to experience harm than good-merit careful reflection.

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)0.003
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations35
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207