MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097671942

Reason for posting: Tuberculo-

2005· article· en· W7097671942 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfectious Diseases and Tuberculosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTuberculosisMantoux testAdenitisTuberculinTest (biology)Skin testLymphangitisHealth care
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

sis poses an enormous health burden worldwide, and tubercu-lin skin tests, which are simple and sensitive, are widely used to screen for the infection. Local hypersensitivity reactions are expected, intended and, in fact, an expression of what the test is supposed to measure. Recently, however, Health Canada has warned of serious allergic reac-tions, including anaphylaxis, in some recipients.1 The test: Mantoux tuberculin skin tests are often administered to those who may be exposed to tuberculosis infection, including people from endemic areas, health care workers and others who work in long-term care fa-cilities, group homes, drug treat-ment centres, prisons and shel-ters for the homeless. People who are immunosuppressed (e.g., patients with HIV infection, dia-betes or renal failure) are also of-ten tested, because they are at greater risk of developing the ac-tive form of tuberculosis. To perform the test, 5 tuber-culin units of purified protein derivative (PPD) of Mycobacteri-um tuberculosis is injected intra-dermally, often in the volar skin of the forearm. A delayed hyper-sensitivity reaction usually starts within 24 hours, reaching its peak between 48 and 72 hours, which is when the test result is read. Characteristically, a circu-lar area of erythema occurs around a more central area of in-duration. (Guidelines for inter-preting the test result are cov-ered elsewhere.2) In 1%–2 % of positive test results, blistering or even local necrosis may occur, but this is usually self-limited.2 Local reactions such as regional lymphangitis and adenitis may also occur on rare occasions. Health Canada now reports systemic hypersensitivity reac-tions occurring in some people after the test, including anaphyl-axis, urticaria, angio- and other edema, and throat swelling. Al-though the Health Canada advi-sory reports few clinical details, these reactions appear to have occurred in at least some pa-tients not previously exposed to the test. Although such adverse events are probably underreported once a product is marketed, these ser-ious reactions seem to occur at a rate of about 1 per million doses dispensed. This rate is similar to anaphylaxis rates typically re-ported for vaccines (1.1–3.1 per million distributed doses).3 In the past 12 years, 26 serious re-actions were reported world-

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInfectious Diseases and TuberculosisFrench-language works237,207