MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982301714 · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(19)30423-2

A household-level score to predict the risk of tuberculosis among contacts of patients with tuberculosis: a derivation and external validation prospective cohort study

2019· article· en· W2982301714 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Matthew J Saunders, Tom Wingfield, Sumona Datta, Rosario Montoya, Eric Ramos, Matthew R. Baldwin, Marco Tovar, Benjamin Evans, Robert H. Gilman, Carlton A. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Infectious Diseases · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilDepartment of Health and Social CareSir Halley Stewart TrustDepartment for International Development, UK GovernmentGovernment of CanadaAcademy of Medical SciencesWellcome TrustWorld Health OrganizationNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsTuberculosisMedicineLogistic regressionCohortContact tracingPsychological interventionProspective cohort studyEpidemiologyCohort studySputumIndex (typography)DemographySurgeryInternal medicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The epidemiological impact and cost-effectiveness of social protection and biomedical interventions for tuberculosis-affected households might be improved by risk stratification. We therefore derived and externally validated a household-level risk score to predict tuberculosis among contacts of patients with tuberculosis. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, we recruited tuberculosis-affected households from 15 desert shanty towns in Ventanilla and 17 urban communities in Callao, Lima, Peru. Tuberculosis-affected households included index patients with a new diagnosis of tuberculosis and their contacts who reported being in the same house as the index patient for more than 6 h per week in the 2 weeks preceding index patient diagnosis. Tuberculosis-affected households were not included if the index patient had no eligible contacts or lived alone. We followed contacts until 2018 and defined household tuberculosis, the primary outcome, as any contact having any form of tuberculosis within 3 years. We used logistic regression to identify characteristics of index patients, contacts, and households that were predictive of household tuberculosis, and used these to derive and externally validate a household-level score. FINDINGS: ) adult contacts, and number of past or present household members who previously had tuberculosis. In this derivation cohort, the score c statistic was 0·77 and the risk of household tuberculosis in the highest scoring quintile was 31% (95% CI 25-38; 65 of 211) versus 2% (95% CI 0-4; four of 231) in the lowest scoring quintile. We externally validated the risk score in a cohort of 4248 contacts from 924 households in Callao recruited between April 23, 2014, and Dec 31, 2015. During follow-up, tuberculosis occurred in contacts of index patients in 120 (13%, 95% CI 11-15) households. The score c statistic in this cohort was 0·75 and the risk of household tuberculosis in the highest scoring quintile was 28% (95% CI 21-36; 43 of 154) versus 1% (95% CI 0-5; two of 148) in the lowest scoring quintile. The highest-scoring third of households captured around 70% of all tuberculosis among contacts. A simplified risk score including only five variables performed similarly, with only a small reduction in performance. INTERPRETATION: This externally validated score will enable comprehensive biosocial, household-level interventions to be targeted to tuberculosis-affected households that are most likely to benefit. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care, Department for International Development, Joint Global Health Trials consortium, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Innovation for Health and Development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations65
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Infectious DiseasesSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207