CLINICAL PROTOCOLS AND GUIDELINES FOR TUBERCULOSIS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE POPULATION DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY: AN INTEGRATIVE REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective: to analyze the global scientific literature regarding Protocols and Clinical Guidelines for tuberculosis management aimed at the Population Deprived of Liberty. Method: this is an integrative review conducted in electronic databases, repositories of protocols and clinical guidelines, government organization websites and gray literature. The search, selection and analysis were performed in pairs. A critical evaluation was performed using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation checklist and matrices of the extracted recommendations were constructed. Results: a total of 10 studies were included in the final analysis of the qualitative synthesis. Heterogeneity in developing the documents and the different recommended actions for TB in the context of liberty deprivation were identified. The protocols included actions for health promotion, disease prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis in the prison context. A general assessment of the guidelines’ adequacy ranged from 3 to 6, with a recommendation for use with modifications for all guidelines. Conclusions: clinical protocols and guidelines for tuberculosis management in prison settings were recommended with modifications for use, especially in the “rigor of development” and “editorial independence” areas. Therefore, the need to develop documents with scientific rigor and that safely transmit content is emphasized.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".