Transcriptional profiles predict treatment outcome in patients with tuberculosis and diabetes at diagnosis and at two weeks after initiation of anti-tuberculosis treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Globally, the anti-tuberculosis (TB) treatment success rate is approximately 85%, with treatment failure, relapse and death occurring in a significant proportion of pulmonary TB patients. Treatment success is lower among people with diabetes mellitus (DM). Predicting treatment failure early after diagnosis would allow early treatment adaptation and may improve global TB control. Methods Samples were collected in a longitudinal cohort study of adult TB patients with or without concomitant DM from South Africa and Indonesia to characterize whole blood transcriptional profiles before and during anti-TB treatment, using unbiased RNA-Seq and targeted gene dcRT-MLPA. Findings We report differences in whole blood transcriptome profiles, which were observed before initiation of treatment and throughout treatment, between patients with a good versus poor anti- TB treatment outcome. An eight-gene and a 22-gene blood transcriptional signature distinguished patients with a good treatment outcome from patients with a poor treatment outcome at diagnosis (AUC=0·815) or two weeks (AUC=0·834) after initiation of anti-TB treatment, respectively. High accuracy was obtained by cross-validating this signature in an external cohort (AUC=0·749). Interpretation These findings suggest that transcriptional profiles can be used as a prognostic biomarker for treatment failure and success, even in patients with concomitant DM. Funding The research leading to these results, as part of the TANDEM Consortium, received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013 Grant Agreement No. 305279) and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO-TOP Grant Agreement No. 91214038).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".