Computer-aided detection of pulmonary tuberculosis on digital chest radiographs: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the diagnostic accuracy of computer-aided detection (CAD) of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) on digital chest radiographs (CXR). DESIGN: We searched four databases for articles published between January 2010 and December 2015 comparing CAD of PTB on CXR to a microbiologic reference standard (smear, culture or polymerase chain reaction). We collected and summarised data on study design, CAD software and diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve [AUC]). RESULTS: We included 5 of 455 articles identified by searching databases. PTB prevalence ranged from 18% to 60%, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence from 33% to 68%. All articles evaluated CAD4TB, the only commercially available software. AUC ranged from 0.71 to 0.84. Software settings that increased sensitivity resulted in important reductions in specificity, and vice versa. Risk of bias was low in prospective studies (n = 2), and high in retrospective studies (n = 3). CONCLUSION: Evidence assessing CAD's diagnostic accuracy is limited by the small number of studies, most of which have important methodological limitations, the availability and evaluation of only one software programme, and limited generalisability to settings where PTB and HIV are less prevalent. Additional research is required.
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 | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".