MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W305650442

The incidence of pulmonary non-tuberculous mycobacteria in British Columbia, Canada.

2009· article· en· W305650442 on OpenAlexaffabout
Eduardo Hernández‐Garduño, M Rodrigues, R. Kevin Elwood

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMycobacterium research and diagnosis
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease Control
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung diseaseGynecologyInternal medicineLung
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SETTING: British Columbia Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC), Vancouver, Canada. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) and to assess the impact of new laboratory techniques. DESIGN: Population-based study of all subjects with positive cultures for NTM from 1990 to 2006. RESULTS: Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) was the most common NTM isolate (77%). The median incidence rates per 100 000 population in the total sample were respectively 6.7, 4.5 and <0.7 for all NTMs, MAC and all non-MAC species; for NTM-treated subjects the rates were respectively 1.6, 1.4 and <0.08; and for the NTM-colonised they were respectively 4.7, 2.7 and <0.5. In the period after the introduction of new laboratory techniques, all NTM isolates, the overall MAC rate and the MAC-colonised rate increased by respectively 24%, 35.4% and 76% (P < 0.05). All NTM isolates and rates for all NTMs, NTM-treated and M. tuberculosis subjects (used as comparison group) decreased over time (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The most common NTM species was MAC. Episodic increases in the number of isolates and incidence rates of subjects colonised with MAC are likely to be associated with the implementation of new laboratory techniques, which may represent an artefact. The decrease in rates of NTM-treated subjects is reassuring.

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)0.000
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 score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations35
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMycobacterium research and diagnosisFrench-language works237,207