Functional Outcomes, Lung health and Livelihood Outcomes among people With Tuberculosis (FOLLOW-TB): study protocol for a multicentre, prospective cohort study in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Tuberculosis (TB) is a major global cause of morbidity and mortality. Emerging evidence in high-burden settings suggests significant long-term sequelae among people surviving TB; however, evidence from high-income, low-TB burden settings like Canada is lacking. In a person with TB infection, provision of TB preventive treatment (TPT) can prevent TB disease and its sequelae, but remains underused. We propose the Functional Outcomes, Lung health and Livelihood Outcomes among people With Tuberculosis study, a multicentre, prospective cohort study in Canada to help improve our understanding of the impacts of TPT and TB disease on individuals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective cohort study taking place in Montreal and Vancouver, Canada. We aim to recruit and retain at least 120 people with microbiologically confirmed TB disease, 340 people treated for TB infection and 120 without TB disease or infection who will be considered our unexposed group. All participants must be ≥6 years of age. Participants with TB disease or infection will be recruited within 2 weeks of treatment initiation. We will follow-up unexposed participants and participants with TB disease for 24 months, and participants with TB infection for 12 months. Throughout follow-up, participants will complete assessments measuring lung health and function, quality of life, disability, dyspnoea, psychological distress, as well as changes in employment and direct and indirect costs incurred because of treatment. Among participants with TB disease, our primary outcome is the difference in quality-adjusted life years between participants with TB disease and those unexposed at 24 months. For participants with TB infection, our primary outcome is the identification of non-patient characteristics (eg, patient cost, quality of life) associated with participant decision to discontinue treatment. Patient partners have contributed to the design of the study and will be involved with the study through to its dissemination. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by institutional ethics review boards at The Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre (2025-10344) and The University of British Columbia (H24-02071). All participants will provide informed consent (and assent, if required) prior to participating in the study. We will disseminate study results to participants, national and international organisations, and through open-access peer-reviewed academic journals and conferences.
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 | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.004 |
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".