Association of indicators of extensive disease and rifampin-resistant tuberculosis treatment outcomes: an individual participant data meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Indicators of extensive disease-acid fast bacilli (AFB) smear positivity and lung cavitation-have been inconsistently associated with clinical rifampin-resistant/multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (RR/MDR-TB) outcomes. We evaluated the association of these indicators with end-of-treatment outcomes. METHODS: We did an individual participant data meta-analysis of people treated for RR/MDR-TB with longer regimens with documented AFB smear and chest radiography findings. We compared people AFB smear-negative without cavities to people: (1) smear-negative with lung cavities; (2) smear-positive without lung cavities and (3) AFB smear-positive with lung cavities. Using multivariable logistic regression accounting for demographic, treatment and clinical factors, we calculated adjusted ORs (aOR) for any unfavourable outcome (death, lost to follow-up, failure/recurrence), and mortality and treatment failure/recurrence alone. RESULTS: We included 5596 participants; included participants significantly differed from excluded participants. Overall, 774 (13.8%) were AFB smear-negative without cavities, 647 (11.6%) only had cavities, 1424 (25.4%) were AFB smear-positive alone and 2751 (49.2%) were AFB smear-positive with cavities. The median age was 37 years (IQR: 28-47), 3580 (64%) were male and 686 (12.5%) had HIV. Compared with participants AFB smear-negative without cavities, aOR (95% CI) for any unfavourable outcome was 1.0 (0.8 to 1.4) for participants smear-negative with lung cavities, 1.2 (0.9 to 1.5) if smear-positive without cavities and 1.6 (1.3 to 2.0) if AFB smear-positive with lung cavities. Odds were only significantly increased for mortality (1.5, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.1) and failure/recurrence (2.2, 95% CI 1.5 to 3.3) among participants AFB smear-positive with lung cavities. CONCLUSION: Only the combination of AFB smear-positivity and lung cavitation was associated with unfavourable outcomes, suggesting they may benefit from stronger regimens.
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 | 0.023 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.053 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".