MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406347283 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316810

The impact of tuberculosis-induced hyperglycemia on pulmonary microbiota and airway mucus secretion in individuals not previously diabetic: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

2025· review· en· W4406347283 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Victor Moses Musyoki, Marianne Mureithi, Annamari Heikinheimo, Elizabeth Maleche‐Obimbo, Kariuki Njaanake, Omu Anzala

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisMucusMedicineAirwayTuberculosisSecretionDiabetes mellitusBioinformaticsImmunologyInternal medicineBiologyPathologyEndocrinologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The lung environment harbours a community of microbes that play a significant role in health and disease, including innate protection against pathogenic microorganisms. Infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis, psychological stress associated with the tuberculosis (TB) disease, and the metabolites from the rifampicin treatment regimen have been reported to induce hyperglycemia and consequently type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in individuals not previously diabetic. The high glucose concentration is proposed to alter the composition of the lung microbiota and airway homeostasis, exerting an influence on TB disease and treatment outcomes. In this systematic review, we propose to synthesize literature on TB-induced hyperglycemia and its impact on lung microbiota and secretion of airway mucus in individuals not previously diabetic. A systematic search will be carried out on PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PROQUEST, Cochrane, SCOPUS, and manually on Google Scholar and references of relevant articles to identify other studies. We will review published articles that include studies on TB-induced hyperglycemia, pulmonary microbiome, mucin secretion, and (or) airway surface liquid upon TB diagnosis and during treatment. The quality of the study articles will be assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analysis will be conducted using random effect model for heterogeneity to pool estimates on microbial diversity. Egger's test will be performed to explore any selective reporting bias. The findings of the systematic review and the meta-analysis will be reported as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) protocol guidelines. This protocol was developed and uploaded onto the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database, registration number: CRD42024482248.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0250.033
Bibliometrics0.0150.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.003

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology→French-language works237,207→