The epidemiology of intransient TB-induced hyperglycaemia in previously undiagnosed diabetes mellitus 2 individuals: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is burgeoning as a global chronic health condition. Some studies suggest that tuberculosis (TB) can even cause diabetes in those not previously known to be diabetic, which as a corollary can add to the already heavy global DM burden. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends screening for DM at the start of TB treatment; however, it remains to be elucidated which patients with TB-induced hyperglycaemia are at risk for developing DM and who would benefit from a more regular follow-up. This systematic review will aim to firstly synthesise literature on the irreversibility of TB-induced hyperglycaemia in individuals with previously undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus and secondly to synthesise literature on risk factors for progression from TB-induced hyperglycaemia to overt DM in previously undiagnosed. METHODS: We will search for relevant studies in electronic databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, PROQUEST, and SCOPUS. Furthermore, references will be hand searched to identify other studies. A flow diagram will be drawn to identify the studies retrieved from each database. We will review all publications that include studies containing data on impaired glucose metabolism upon TB diagnosis, and the quality of all eligible studies will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We will further conduct a meta-analysis to pool estimates on the risk of progression of persistent hyperglycaemia to overt DM within this population group, as well as the risk factors for this progression. We will use a random effect model to assess heterogeneity, will carry out sensitivity analysis to explore the influence of a single study on the overall estimate, and will report our findings from our systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines. Egger's test will be performed to explore the presence of selective reporting bias. If data allow, we will perform a subgroup/meta-regression analysis. Summary effects will be reported using odds ratio, hazard ratio, and relative risk ratios. Furthermore, any clinical, epidemiological, and public health research gaps we identify will be described in a research proposal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.064 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".