MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411473485 · doi:10.1101/2025.06.19.25329919

Imprecision in tuberculosis infection outcomes; implications for non-inferiority vaccine trials

2025· preprint· en· W4411473485 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Grint, Richard G White, Gavin Churchyard, Andrew Fioré-Gartland, Molebogeng X. Rangaka, Alberto L Garcia-Basteiro, Frank Cobelens

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTuberculosisMedicineTuberculosis vaccinesVirologyIntensive care medicineMycobacterium tuberculosisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Randomised trials comparing new vaccines against tuberculosis for use in neonates and infants, for whom Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination is established practice, are using tuberculosis infection as the primary endpoint in a non-inferiority design. Markers of tuberculosis infection have imperfect sensitivity and specificity. Flaws in the non-inferiority trial design typically bias towards the null, which may result in falsely declaring non-inferiority. Methods We conducted a statistical simulation study to assess the impact of imperfect markers of tuberculosis infection on the interpretation of tuberculosis vaccine trials testing a non-inferiority hypothesis of an infection primary outcome in a two-arm randomized comparison. Data were generated in three 2-year cumulative risk of tuberculosis infection scenarios (2%, 5%, and 8%). The specificity of tests of tuberculosis infection was assumed to range from 100% to 85%, while the sensitivity was assumed to range from 100% to 64%. Log-binomial regression was used to estimate the relative risk of tuberculosis infection. Results With 100% sensitivity and specificity, type-I and type-II error were both approximately equal to the expected values (2.5% and 80%, respectively) in all three cumulative tuberculosis risk scenarios. With modest deviations from perfect sensitivity and specificity (95% for both), the risk of falsely declaring non-inferiority was 96.8%, 53.2%, and 27.8% in the 2%, 5%, and 8% cumulative tuberculosis risk infection scenarios, respectively. Discussion Tuberculosis vaccine non-inferiority trials using an infection primary outcome must be designed and interpreted accounting for the specificity of the tools used to measure infection, otherwise they risk declaring non-inferiority by default. Key messages We conducted a statistical simulation study to assess the impact of imperfect sensitivity and specificity, in the primary outcome definition of tuberculosis infection, in vaccine trials testing a non-inferiority hypothesis. With only modest departures from perfect specificity in tuberculosis infection markers, the risk of falsely declaring non-inferiority is substantial. Vaccine trials testing a non-inferiority hypothesis with an infection primary outcome must account for the imprecision in the tools used to define the outcome, otherwise vaccines may be falsely declared non-inferior.

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)0.632
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.884
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6320.884
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.010
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.014
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0100.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.352 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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