MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206754232 · doi:10.36566/mjph/vol4.iss2/257

Risk Factors of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in the Working Area of Perumnas Public Health Center Kendari City

2021· article· en· W4206754232 on OpenAlexaff
Andi Mauliyana, Evi Hadrikaselma

Bibliographic record

VenueMIRACLE Journal Of Public Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPublic Health and Nutrition
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnvironmental healthPublic healthIncidence (geometry)Odds ratioTuberculosisPulmonary tuberculosisRisk factorInternal medicineNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kendari City is the area with the highest number of TB cases in Southeast Sulawesi Province with a total of 488 cases in 2019. Preliminary data at the Perumnas Public Health Center showed that there were 49 TB cases in 2019. This study aims to determine the risk factors for the incidence of pulmonary TB in the Work Area. Public Health Center. This study uses a case control design. The study population was 105 patients, with a sample consisting of 44 case samples and 44 control samples, which were taken by simple random sampling. Data analysis using Chi Square test and Odds Ratio. From the results of the study, it was found that there were significant risk factors between smoking habits (OR = 5,156), contact history (OR = 8,333), occupancy density (OR = 2,544), knowledge (OR = 3,852) and ventilation (OR = 3,071) with the incidence of pulmonary tuberkulosis. The conclusion of this study is smoking habits, contact history, occupancy density, knowledge, and ventilation are risk factors for the incidence of pulmonary tuberkulosis at the Perumnas Public Health Center. Therefore, it is suggested to the health workers of the Puskesmas are expected to continue to provide health promotion and improve work programs related to pulmonary TB in order to increase knowledge and awareness of the community to prevent transmission of pulmonary 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 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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMIRACLE Journal Of Public HealthSame topicPublic Health and NutritionFrench-language works237,207