MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7161776073 · doi:10.82308/21432

An evaluation of radiographic screening for tuberculosis in immigrants to Canada /

2003· dissertation· en· W7161776073 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrea J. Saunders

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTuberculosisImmigrationIncidence (geometry)RadiographyResidenceEpidemiologyKappaDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. Foreign-born persons applying for permanent residence in Canada must undergo radiographic screening for tuberculosis (TB). As a screening tool for TB, however, the chest x-ray has a number of limitations. Objectives. To evaluate the reliability of chest radiographic screening as well as its ability to detect prevalent active TB and predict future incident disease in immigrants to Canada. Methods. Immigration screening x-rays were categorized by 12 physicians experienced in TB; observer agreement was calculated using the kappa coefficient. The prevalence and incidence of active TB diagnosed among applications screened at the Montreal Chest Institute between 1995 and 1998 was measured. Results. Intra- and inter-observer agreement was fair to moderate. Among 36,433 applicants screened, 53 prevalent cases were detected (0.145%) and 19 incident cases were reported post-screening (25.7 per 100,000 person-years). Conclusion. Radiographic screening successfully detects immigrants with active TB but is limited in preventing future incident cases. Observer agreement needs to be improved.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 topicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology→French-language works237,207→