The Natural History of Untreated Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND Key stages in TB disease can be delineated by radiology, microbiology and symptoms, but transition between relevant stages remains unclear. We sought to quantify progression and regression across the spectrum of TB disease by systematically reviewing studies of individuals with untreated TB undergoing follow up. METHODS We searched PubMED, EMBASE and Web of Science until December 31 st 1960, the Index Medicus between 1895 and 1945, and extensive investigator collections without date restriction - in English and German. Eligible studies were observational cohorts and clinical trials, presenting adults/adolescents with TB or recent TB exposure, undergoing follow-up for at least 12 months without therapeutic intervention. Two authors independently reviewed titles/abstracts and full texts for inclusion. Quality was assessed with a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Score, excluding highly biased studies. Summary estimates were extracted to align with TB disease transitions in a conceptual model, and we used meta-analysis of proportions with random-effects to synthesise the extracted data. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019152585). FINDINGS 10477 titles were screened and 1648 full texts reviewed. 223 met inclusion criteria. 109 were excluded for high risk of bias and 90 did not have extractable data. 24 studies (34 cohorts) were included. Progression from microbiologically negative to positive disease in those with radiographic TB evidence occurred at an annualized rate of 9.71% (95% CI:6.17-13.34) with “active” TB imaging, and 1.06% (95% CI:0.31-1.82) with “inactive” TB imaging. Reversion from microbiologically-positive to -undetectable in prospective cohorts occurred at an annualized rate of 12.40% (95% CI: 6.81-17.99). Studies reported symptoms poorly not allowing for direct estimation of transitions for subclinical (asymptomatic, culture positive) disease. INTERPRETATION We present the risk of progression in those with radiographic evidence of disease and the rate of self-cure for microbiologically positive disease to inform global disease burden estimates, clinical guidelines and policy decisions.
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 | 0.019 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".