MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224219866 · doi:10.1128/spectrum.00586-22

Relationship between DNA Methylation Profiles and Active Tuberculosis Development from Latent Infection: a Pilot Study in Nested Case-Control Design

2022· article· en· W4224219866 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ying Du, Xu Gao, Jiaoxia Yan, Haoran Zhang, Xuefang Cao, Boxuan Feng, Yijun He, Yongpeng He, Tonglei Guo, Henan Xin, Lei Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiology Spectrum · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
KeywordsTuberculosisNested case-control studyLatent tuberculosisActive tuberculosisMycobacterium tuberculosisDNA methylationPopulationQuarter (Canadian coin)DiseaseImmunologyMedicineEnvironmental healthCase-control studyBiologyGeneticsInternal medicineGeneGeographyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximately a quarter of the world population had been infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and about 5 to 10% of these individuals might develop active disease in their lifetimes. As a critical component of the "end TB strategies," preventive treatment was shown to protect 60 to 90% of high-risk LTBIs from developing active disease. Developing new TB screening tools based on blood-based biomarkers, which could identify and rule out active TB from LTBI, are prerequisite before initialing intervention. We tried to explore potential DNA methylation diagnostic biomarkers through retrospectively detected DNA methylation profiles pre- and post-TB diagnosis. Eight dmCpGs were identified, and the combination of "cg02206980 + cg02214623 + cg12159502 + cg12321798" showed a sensitivity of 93.33% and a specificity of 86.67%. The preliminary results provided new insight into detecting the DNA methylation level as a potential tool to distinguish TB from LTBI.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobiology SpectrumSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207