Tuberculosis-Associated Respiratory Disability in Children, Adolescents, and Adults: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Approximately 2% of the global population has survived tuberculosis (TB). Increasing evidence indicates that a significant proportion of pulmonary TB survivors develop TB-associated respiratory disability, commonly referred to as post-TB lung disease (PLTD) and marked by impaired respiratory function, persistent symptoms, and activity limitations. However, the prevalence, risk factors, and progression of TB-associated respiratory disability throughout the life course are not well understood. To address these gaps, we will undertake a systematic review and individual participant-level data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) focusing on TB-associated respiratory disability in children, adolescents, and adults successfully treated for pulmonary TB. Methods and analysis We will systematically search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Global Index Medicus, and medRxiv for original studies investigating TB-associated respiratory disability in people of all ages who have completed treatment for microbiologically confirmed or clinically diagnosed pulmonary TB. Authors of eligible studies will be invited to contribute de-identified data and form a collaborative group. Primary outcomes will be (1) abnormal lung function based on spirometry parameters and (2) chronic respiratory symptoms. We will estimate the overall and subgroup-specific prevalence of each outcome through IPD meta-analysis. Next, we will develop clinical prediction tools assessing the risk of future TB-associated respiratory disability at (i) the start of TB treatment and (ii) end of TB treatment for those without existing signs of disability. Finally, we will use stepwise hierarchical modelling to identify epidemiological determinants of respiratory disability. Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the ethics review boards at the Rhode Island Hospital (2138217-2) and the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre (2024-10345). Individual study authors will be required to obtain institutional approval prior to sharing data. Results will be disseminated through open-access, peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Prospero registration number CRD42024529906 Strengths and limitations of this study An individual participant data meta-analysis allows for data harmonization to help overcome limitations of individual studies and aggregate meta-analysis, including small sample size, heterogeneity, and limited reporting of subgroups, such as age and other risk factors. We will be able to identify weaknesses in current reporting and recommend standards to support high-quality data collection and facilitate pooling of data. Key limitations include authors’ willingness to share data, representativeness of data contributed, and missing data. We will build an ongoing data collection platform to allow updating of evidence. Results will have implications for public health, clinical trial design, and clinical practice to support TB survivors.
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 | 0.058 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.005 |
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".