MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413999615 · doi:10.5588/pha.25.0011

Improving TB care services among coal mine workers and their associated communities in Pakistan

2025· article· en· W4413999615 on OpenAlexaff
K.U. Eman, Ghulam Nabi Kazi, Zhi Zhen Qin, Sher Afgan Raisani, Usman R. Lodhi, S. John

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Action · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoal miningEnvironmental healthCoalData scienceData miningWaste managementComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SETTING: Five major coal mining districts in Balochistan, Pakistan. OBJECTIVES: To assess burden of TB among coal miners and their associated communities and establish linkages with TB care services. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted to find TB cases through active case finding. The target population included people working at coal mining sites and surrounding communities residing within 10 km, including coal miners' families and other individuals. Verbal symptom screening was carried out via mobile camps and community outreach. Sputum was collected from screened positive individuals and tested for TB on GeneXpert. TB cases diagnosed were linked with TB care services. RESULTS: A total of 14,541 individuals including 8,149 (56%) coal miners were screened. Of the people screened, 81% were male, median age was 31 years, 2,274 (15.6%) had TB symptoms, and 34 confirmed TB cases were diagnosed. All 34 TB patients were linked to care and 32 completed treatments successfully. The estimated TB prevalence was 234 cases per 100,000 population (95% confidence interval: 150.6-316.5), with no significant difference between coal miners and associated communities. CONCLUSION: Similar TB prevalence among coal miners and associated communities reflects shared vulnerability. Use of more sensitive screening tools is recommended to validate prevalence estimates in future studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Health ActionSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207