Quantitative IFN-γ Release Assay and Tuberculin Skin Test Results to Predict Incident Tuberculosis. A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Development of diagnostic tools with improved predictive value for tuberculosis (TB) is a global research priority. Objectives We evaluated whether implementing higher diagnostic thresholds than currently recommended for QuantiFERON Gold-in-Tube (QFT-GIT), T-SPOT.TB, and the tuberculin skin test (TST) might improve prediction of incident TB. Methods Follow-up of a UK cohort of 9,610 adult TB contacts and recent migrants was extended by relinkage to national TB surveillance records (median follow-up 4.7 yr). Incidence rates and rate ratios, sensitivities, specificities, and predictive values for incident TB were calculated according to ordinal strata for quantitative results of QFT-GIT, T-SPOT.TB, and TST (with adjustment for prior bacillus Calmette-Guérin [BCG] vaccination). Measurements and Main Results For all tests, incidence rates and rate ratios increased with the magnitude of the test result (P < 0.0001). Over 3 years’ follow-up, there was a modest increase in positive predictive value with the higher thresholds (3.0% for QFT-GIT ≥0.35 IU/ml vs. 3.6% for ≥4.00 IU/ml; 3.4% for T-SPOT.TB ≥5 spots vs. 5.0% for ≥50 spots; and 3.1% for BCG-adjusted TST ≥5 mm vs. 4.3% for ≥15 mm). As thresholds increased, sensitivity to detect incident TB waned for all tests (61.0% for QFT-GIT ≥0.35 IU/ml vs. 23.2% for ≥4.00 IU/ml; 65.4% for T-SPOT.TB ≥5 spots vs. 27.2% for ≥50 spots; 69.7% for BCG-adjusted TST ≥5 mm vs. 28.1% for ≥15 mm). Conclusions Implementation of higher thresholds for QFT-GIT, T-SPOT.TB, and TST modestly increases positive predictive value for incident TB, but markedly reduces sensitivity. Novel biomarkers or validated multivariable risk algorithms are required to improve prediction of incident TB.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".