Gaps in Study Design for Immune Parameter Research for Latent Tuberculosis Infection: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immune parameters (IP) have been extensively studied to distinguish between latent tuberculosis (LTBI) and active tuberculosis (TB).To determine the IP associated with LTBI, compared to active TB and individuals not infected by M. tuberculosis published in literature.We conducted a systematic search using Google Scholar and PubMed databases, combining the MeSH terms latent tuberculosis, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, cytokines, and biological markers, with the free terms, biomarkers and cytokines. Spanish, English, and Portuguese articles comparing the concentration of IP associated with LTBI, either in plasma/serum or in vitro, in adults and nonimmunocompromised versus individuals with TB or without M. tuberculosis infection between 2006 July and 2018 July were included. Two blinded reviewers carried out the searches, read the abstracts, and selected the articles for analysis. Participants' information, diagnostic criteria, IP, detection methods, and biases were collected.We analyzed 36 articles (of 637 abstracts) with 93 different biomarkers in different samples. We found 24 parameters that were increased only in active TB (TGF-α, CSF3, CSF2, CCL1 [I-309], IL-7, TGF-β1, CCL3 [MIP-1α], sIL-2R, TNF-β, CCL7 [MCP-3], IFN-α, fractalkine, I-TAG, CCL8 [MCP-2], CCL21 [6Ckine], PDGF, IL-22, VEGF-A, LXA4, PGE2, PGF2α, sCD163, sCD14, and 15-Epi-LXA4), five were elevated in LTBI (IL-5, IL-17F, IL-1, CCL20 [MIP-3α], and ICAM-1), and two substances were increased among uninfected individuals (IL-23 and basic FGF). We found high heterogeneity between studies including failure to account for the time/illness of the individuals studied; varied samples and protocols; different clinical classification of TB; different laboratory methods for IP detection, which in turn leads to variable units of measurement and assay sensitivities; and selection bias regarding TST and booster effect. None of the studies adjusted the analysis for the effect of ethnicity.It is mandatory to harmonize the study of immune parameters for LTBI diagnosis. This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO CRD42017073289.
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 | 0.072 | 0.245 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".