MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Practical considerations for a TB controlled human infection model (TB-CHIM); the case for TB-CHIM in Africa, a systematic review of the literature and report of 2 workshop discussions in UK and Malawi

2023· review· en· W4380355039 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen B. Gordon, Simon Sichone, Anthony Chirwa, Phoebe Hazenberg, Zacharia Kafuko, Daniela M. Ferreira, JoAnne L. Flynn, Sarah M. Fortune, Shobana Balasingam, Giancarlo A. Biagini, Helen McShane, Henry C. Mwandumba, Kondwani Jambo, Keertan Dheda, Nimisha Raj Sharma, Brian D. Robertson, Naomi F. Walker, Ben Morton

Bibliographic record

VenueWellcome Open Research · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune responses and vaccinations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
KeywordsMedicineSystematic reviewCINAHLMEDLINEPsychological interventionPsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major challenge in many domains including diagnosis, pathogenesis, prevention, treatment, drug resistance and long-term protection of the public health by vaccination. A controlled human infection model (CHIM) could potentially facilitate breakthroughs in each of these domains but has so far been considered impossible owing to technical and safety concerns. Methods: A systematic review of mycobacterial human challenge studies was carried out to evaluate progress to date, best possible ways forward and challenges to be overcome. We searched MEDLINE (1946 to current) and CINAHL (1984 to current) databases; and Google Scholar to search citations in selected manuscripts. The final search was conducted 3 rd February 2022. Inclusion criteria: adults ≥18 years old; administration of live mycobacteria; and interventional trials or cohort studies with immune and/or microbiological endpoints. Exclusion criteria: animal studies; studies with no primary data; no administration of live mycobacteria; retrospective cohort studies; case-series; and case-reports. Relevant tools (Cochrane Collaboration for RCTs and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomised studies) were used to assess risk of bias and present a narrative synthesis of our findings. Results: The search identified 1,388 titles for review; of these 90 were reviewed for inclusion; and 27 were included. Of these, 15 were randomised controlled trials and 12 were prospective cohort studies. We focussed on administration route, challenge agent and dose administered for data extraction. Overall, BCG studies including fluorescent BCG show the most immediate utility, and genetically modified Mycobacteria tuberculosis is the most tantalising prospect of discovery breakthrough. Conclusions: The TB-CHIM development group met in 2019 and 2022 to consider the results of the systematic review, to hear presentations from many of the senior authors whose work had been reviewed and to consider best ways forward. This paper reports both the systematic review and the deliberations. Registration: PROSPERO ( CRD42022302785 ; 21 January 2022).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.108
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.248
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1080.248
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.008
Bibliometrics0.0140.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.288
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWellcome Open ResearchSame topicImmune responses and vaccinationsFrench-language works237,207