Two clinical prediction tools to inform rapid tuberculosis treatment decision-making in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In the absence of bacteriologic confirmation to diagnose tuberculosis (TB) in children, it is suggested that treatment should be initiated when sufficient clinical evidence of disease is available. However, it is unclear what clinical evidence is sufficient to make this decision. To identify children who would benefit from rapid initiation of TB treatment, we developed 2 clinical prediction tools. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective intensified TB patient-finding intervention conducted in Pakistan in 2014-2016. TB disease was determined through either bacteriologic confirmation or a clinical diagnosis. We derived 2 tools: 1 uses classification and regression tree (CART) analysis to develop decision trees, while the second uses multivariable logistic regression to calculate a risk score. Results: Of the 5162 and 5074 children included in the CART and prediction score, respectively, 1417 (27.5%) and 1365 (26.9%) were eligible for TB treatment. CART identified abnormal chest radiographs and family history of TB as the most important predictors (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.949). The final prediction score model included age group (0-4, 5-9, 10-14), weight <5th percentile, cough, fever, weight loss, chest radiograph suggestive of TB disease, and family history of TB; the identified best cutoff score was 9 (AUC, 0.985%). Conclusions: Use of clinical evidence was sufficient to accurately identify children who would benefit from treatment initiation. Our tools performed well compared with existing algorithms, though these results need to be externally validated before operationalization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".