Tuberculosis in Prisons: Importance of Considering the Clustering in the Analysis of Cross-Sectional Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The level of clustering and the adjustment by cluster-robust standard errors have yet to be widely considered and reported in cross-sectional studies of tuberculosis (TB) in prisons. In two cross-sectional studies of people deprived of liberty (PDL) in Medellin, we evaluated the impact of adjustment versus failure to adjust by clustering on prevalence ratio (PR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We used log-binomial regression, Poisson regression, generalized estimating equations (GEE), and mixed-effects regression models. We used cluster-robust standard errors and bias-corrected standard errors. The odds ratio (OR) was 20% higher than the PR when the TB prevalence was >10% in at least one of the exposure factors. When there are three levels of clusters (city, prison, and courtyard), the cluster that had the strongest effect was the courtyard, and the 95% CI estimated with GEE and mixed-effect models were narrower than those estimated with Poisson and binomial models. Exposure factors lost their significance when we used bias-corrected standard errors due to the smaller number of clusters. Tuberculosis transmission dynamics in prisons dictate a strong cluster effect that needs to be considered and adjusted for. The omission of cluster structure and bias-corrected by the small number of clusters can lead to wrong inferences.
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 | 0.442 | 0.700 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".