The performance and yield of tuberculosis testing algorithms using microscopy, chest x-ray, and Xpert MTB/RIF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SETTING: The introduction of Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) and renewed interest in chest x-ray (CXR) for tuberculosis testing has provided additional choices to the smear-based diagnostic algorithms used by TB programs previously. More programmatic data is needed to better understand the implications of possible approaches. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate how different testing algorithms using microscopy, Xpert and CXR impacted the number of people detected with TB in a district hospital in Nepal. DESIGN: Consecutively recruited patients with TB-related symptoms were offered smear microscopy, CXR and Xpert. We tested six hypothetical algorithms and compared yield, bacteriologically positive (Bac+) cases missed, and tests conducted. RESULTS: = 161). Smear microscopy detected 121 (75.2% of Bac+). Depending on the radiologists' interpretation of CXR, Xpert testing could be reduced by (31%-60%). Smear microscopy reduced Xpert cartridge need slightly, but increased the overall diagnostic tests performed. CONCLUSION: Xpert detected a large proportion of Bac+ TB cases missed by microscopy. CXR was useful in greatly reducing the number of diagnostic tests needed even among presumptive TB patients. Loose CXR readings should be used to identify more people for TB testing. More analysis of costs and standardized CXR reading should be considered.
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 | 0.012 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".