TB preventive treatment among pregnant women with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The WHO recommends TB preventive treatment (TPT) for people living with HIV, including pregnant women. Uptake of this policy recommendation in this subpopulation and country alignment with WHO guidance is unclear.METHODS: We conducted a policy review in 38 WHO high TB and TB-HIV burden countries to assess if the uptake of TPT policy among pregnant women living with HIV was in line with the WHO´s 2018 Updated and Consolidated Guidelines for Programmatic Management for LTBI. Data sources included TB national guidelines and HIV/AIDS/ART national guidelines, complemented by results from a previous survey on policy uptake held at the WHO.RESULTS: Uptake of WHO policy to provide TB preventive treatment among women with HIV accessing antenatal care was moderate: 64% (23 of 36 countries) explicitly recommended at least one clinical guideline or policy recommendation on screening, testing or treatment of LTBI among pregnant women living with HIV. There was considerable variation between countries on the stages in pregnancy that TPT should be provided. Two countries (5%) provided clinical monitoring recommendations for pregnant women.CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate uptake of TPT policy for pregnant women with HIV. Failure to provide TPT as part of antenatal or prevention of mother-to-child services is a missed opportunity for TB control.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".