Latent Tuberculosis: Two Centuries of Confusion.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term latent tuberculosis (TB) was coined two centuries ago to describe post-mortem tuberculous pathology in the absence of ante-mortem tuberculosis manifestations. However, the meaning of the term has changed with each passing century, engendering confusion. In the early 20th century, with the advent of microbiological assays for live tubercle bacteria, latent TB switched from the host to refer to the bacteria from post-mortem tissues of nontuberculous hosts. Then in the late 20th century, the definition of latent TB infection returned to the host, this time referring to those with immunoreactivity to Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigens. Based on this new definition, latent TB infection is unique among bacterial infectious diseases, in that supportive evidence of the infection state is sought by the absence of the causative bacterium and its clinical manifestations. The use of indirect bedside and laboratory tests to denote infection creates clinical and research confusion, as the tests for immunoreactivity suffer from recognized limitations in sensitivity and specificity. We propose that the concept of latent TB infection be separated from that of tuberculous immunoreactivity in the interest of correct diagnosis and focused treatment, correct formulation and interpretation of research questions and better allocation of programmatic resources for TB elimination. To this end, we suggest new terminology to course-correct our thinking about tuberculous infection (TBI) which is subdivided into tuberculous infection-no disease (TBInd) and the long-accepted term for the disease, tuberculosis (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 | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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".