MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409791043 · doi:10.1101/2025.04.24.25326338

C-reactive protein for pulmonary tuberculosis screening and treatment response monitoring in children

2025· preprint· en· W4409791043 on OpenAlexaff
Joy Githua, Jerphason Mecha, Joshua Stern, Jaclyn N Escudero, Lilian N. Njagi, L Akeyo Kijaro, Jacqueline Mirera, Wilfred Murithi, Grace John‐Stewart, Elizabeth Obimbo, Videlis Nduba, Sylvia M. LaCourse

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesUniversity of WashingtonNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthCenter for AIDS Research, University of WashingtonFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
KeywordsPulmonary tuberculosisMedicineTuberculosisIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePediatricsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C-reactive protein (CRP) was investigated as a marker for diagnostic screening and monitoring response to treatment for tuberculosis (TB) in Kenyan children. For screening, CRP levels did not differ significantly between children with versus without TB. However, median CRP levels decreased significantly during TB treatment in confirmed (p=0.03) and unconfirmed TB (p=0.002) suggesting potential of treatment response monitoring. SUMMARY: CRP levels did not differ significantly between children with versus without TB at diagnosis but decreased significantly during TB treatment in confirmed (p=0.02) and unconfirmed TB (p<0.001). While CRP's diagnostic screening performance was suboptimal, findings suggest potential utility for treatment response monitoring in children with TB.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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