Concurrent use of low complexity automated NAATs for TB diagnosis and detection of resistance: A cost-effectiveness analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current TB diagnostics relying on respiratory samples are less effective in children (under 10 years), children living with HIV (CLHIV) and adult people living with HIV (PLHIV). Concurrent testing using low-complexity automated nucleic acid amplification tests (LC-aNAATs) on multiple sample types and Lateral Flow Lipoarabinomannan (LF-LAM) improves diagnostic performance, but concerns about cost-effectiveness remain. To inform WHO guideline development group (GDG) recommendation we developed stochastic decision analysis model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of concurrent LC-aNAAT testing in these populations in Malawi and the Philippines. The analysis, conducted from a healthcare system perspective estimated incremental cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted using country-specific parameters from published literature and systematic review conducted for GDG. Concurrent testing was assessed using LC-aNAAT on respiratory and stool samples for children, LC-aNAAT on respiratory samples and LF-LAM for PLHIV, and a combination of both approaches for CLHIV. Concurrent testing in children compared to respiratory samples had incremental cost per DALY averted of $253 (95% uncertainty interval (UI): $123 to $2317) in Malawi and $156 (95% UI: $79 to $888) in the Philippines. For PLHIV, concurrent testing had an incremental cost per DALY averted of $42 (95% UI: $18 to $345) in Malawi and $28 (95% UI: $12 to $249) in the Philippines. In CLHIV, concurrent testing had an incremental cost per DALY averted of $43 (95% UI: $28 to $89) in Malawi and $29 (95% UI: $18 to $63) in the Philippines. Sensitivity analyses highlighted TB prevalence and respiratory sample availability as key influencers of cost-effectiveness. In scenarios with higher TB prevalence, cost-effectiveness improved, while an increase in the probability of producing respiratory sample resulted in worsening cost-effectiveness estimates. Concurrent use of LC-aNAATs on multiple sample types and in conjunction with LF-LAM emerged as highly cost-effective strategy for diagnosing TB among children, PLHIV, and CLHIV.
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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".