MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132969831

Factors associated with the initiation of treatment for latent tuberculosis infection

2003· dissertation· W7132969831 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrea S. Gershon

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2003
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatent tuberculosisTuberculosisMultivariate analysisCohortRetrospective cohort studyPopulationCohort study
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Treating Latent Tuberculosis (TB) Infection (LTBI) decreases the risk of it progressing to active TB by 90%, yet only a fraction of those offered treatment initiate therapy. Objective. To determine if being a health care worker (HCW) is associated with the initiation of treatment for LTBI. Methods. Retrospective cohort study of patients with LTBI. Results. The overall LTBI treatment initiation rate of the clinic population was 58%. Fifty-five of 116 (47%) HCW versus 126/194 (65%) non-HCW initiated treatment for LTBI. (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30–0.78) Multivariate analysis controlling for age, sex, foreign-birth, contact with active TB, previous Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccination, previous positive TB skin test, history of liver disease, abnormal liver enzymes, CXR abnormalities, comorbidities, and income produced similar results (adjusted OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29–0.86). Conclusion. At a TB clinic in downtown Toronto, HCW were less likely than other patients to initiate treatment for LTBI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology→French-language works237,207→