Daniel Grint
@danieljgrint.bsky.social
Associate Prof of Medical Statistics @lshtm.bsky.social | TB and HIV treatment trialist | Electronic health records analyst | Running shoe geek
For this reason the combination of Xpert CT and a detailed CXR examination seems to be best at identifying those who may relapse post treatment.
September 30, 2025 at 4:07 PM
For this reason the combination of Xpert CT and a detailed CXR examination seems to be best at identifying those who may relapse post treatment.
They may all represent seperate pathways, except smear and CT which intuitively may be related based on sputum. The great benefit of Xpert CT is the automatic readout with no need for reader interpretation. I imagine much of the variability in culture/smear comes from the operator.
September 30, 2025 at 4:06 PM
They may all represent seperate pathways, except smear and CT which intuitively may be related based on sputum. The great benefit of Xpert CT is the automatic readout with no need for reader interpretation. I imagine much of the variability in culture/smear comes from the operator.
Correlations between CT, culture and CXR were weak, it's only smear that was reasonably correlated with CT. Smear and culture were weakly correlated with each other (R^2 14%), but neither correlated with CXR (both R^2 <10%).
September 30, 2025 at 4:02 PM
Correlations between CT, culture and CXR were weak, it's only smear that was reasonably correlated with CT. Smear and culture were weakly correlated with each other (R^2 14%), but neither correlated with CXR (both R^2 <10%).
Hi Gabriele
Ultra is worse than Xpert at differentiating between the higher levels of disease severity. The study population was skewed towards a higher degree of disease severity, which may explain the lack of correlation between Ultra and CXR.
Ultra is worse than Xpert at differentiating between the higher levels of disease severity. The study population was skewed towards a higher degree of disease severity, which may explain the lack of correlation between Ultra and CXR.
September 30, 2025 at 3:55 PM
Hi Gabriele
Ultra is worse than Xpert at differentiating between the higher levels of disease severity. The study population was skewed towards a higher degree of disease severity, which may explain the lack of correlation between Ultra and CXR.
Ultra is worse than Xpert at differentiating between the higher levels of disease severity. The study population was skewed towards a higher degree of disease severity, which may explain the lack of correlation between Ultra and CXR.
"Nobody suspects the dishwasher" sticks in memory from a previous round I attended somewhere.
September 3, 2025 at 10:22 PM
"Nobody suspects the dishwasher" sticks in memory from a previous round I attended somewhere.
p.s. I've been consistently spelling injectAble wrong for 3+ years now.
July 18, 2025 at 3:12 PM
p.s. I've been consistently spelling injectAble wrong for 3+ years now.
Yeah, that part could definitely be better written. 10% mortality reduction is impressive!
July 18, 2025 at 7:46 AM
Yeah, that part could definitely be better written. 10% mortality reduction is impressive!
Interpretation beyond that is for the reader. It's possible these results could still change guidelines.
July 17, 2025 at 10:25 AM
Interpretation beyond that is for the reader. It's possible these results could still change guidelines.
I think you'd probably be right to, assuming there are no potential ill effects. 'Statistical significant' i.e. <0.05 is less of a thing now, but you still have to respect the study design. In this case, they just missed the pre-defined superiority criteria and must report on those lines.
July 17, 2025 at 10:18 AM
I think you'd probably be right to, assuming there are no potential ill effects. 'Statistical significant' i.e. <0.05 is less of a thing now, but you still have to respect the study design. In this case, they just missed the pre-defined superiority criteria and must report on those lines.
You don't need a Bayesian analysis to be less rigid in interpreting p- values. You're right the result looks promising, but it requires further study.
July 17, 2025 at 9:52 AM
You don't need a Bayesian analysis to be less rigid in interpreting p- values. You're right the result looks promising, but it requires further study.
Mandating culture/PCR for everyone in a vaccine trial makes sense to me, I didn't realise that wasn't the case. But it could (likely will) end up costing more even if the sample size is lower.
July 5, 2025 at 1:36 PM
Mandating culture/PCR for everyone in a vaccine trial makes sense to me, I didn't realise that wasn't the case. But it could (likely will) end up costing more even if the sample size is lower.
Very interesting. In TB treatment trials, it's standard practice to test culture from everyone every few months regardless of symptoms. Consecutive positives define TB relapse without worrying about symptoms. However, this is a big cost driver!!!
July 5, 2025 at 1:35 PM
Very interesting. In TB treatment trials, it's standard practice to test culture from everyone every few months regardless of symptoms. Consecutive positives define TB relapse without worrying about symptoms. However, this is a big cost driver!!!
add 10% to the quote you see when shopping around is my philosophy once it's been through the booking agent
June 26, 2025 at 8:30 AM
add 10% to the quote you see when shopping around is my philosophy once it's been through the booking agent