MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3030789693 · doi:10.1128/jcm.01950-19

Fourth-Generation QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus: What Is the Evidence?

2020· review· en· W3030789693 on OpenAlexaff
Arena Shafeque, Jacob Bigio, Catherine A. Hogan, Madhukar Pai, Niaz Banaei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantiFERONLatent tuberculosisMedicineGold standard (test)TuberculosisCD8Mycobacterium tuberculosisImmunologyInterferon gammaVirologyImmune systemInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus) is the latest generation of interferon gamma release assays (IGRAs) to receive approval from the U.S. FDA, replacing its predecessor, QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT). The novelty of QFT-Plus is that it elicits a response from CD8 T cells, in addition to CD4 T cells, thus collecting a broader response from T-cell subsets than QFT-GIT. It was developed with the aim to improve the detection of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI), especially among recently exposed contacts, immunocompromised hosts, and young children. In this minireview, we summarize the performance of QFT-Plus compared with that of QFT-GIT among active tuberculosis (TB) patients (a surrogate for LTBI patients), high-risk populations, and low-risk individuals based on recent publications. Studies comparing QFT-Plus to QFT-GIT currently do not support the superior performance of QFT-Plus in individuals with active TB and LTBI. The difference in sensitivity between QFT-Plus and QFT-GIT in active TB patients was not significant in nearly all studies and ranged from -4.0 to 2.0%. Among high-risk groups, the agreement between QFT-Plus and QFT-GIT was 89.9 to 96.0% (kappa coefficient range, 0.80 to 0.91). The specificity in the low-risk population was slightly lower for QFT-Plus than for QFT-GIT, with the difference ranging from -7.4 to 0%. Further studies are needed to accurately evaluate the sensitivity of QFT-Plus in immunocompromised hosts and children. In addition, further evidence is required to validate a modified interpretation of QFT-Plus for the identification of false-positive results in low-risk health care workers.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.428
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.111 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations84
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MicrobiologySame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207