Using artificial intelligence to read chest radiographs for tuberculosis detection: A multi-site evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of three deep learning systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning (DL) neural networks have only recently been employed to interpret chest radiography (CXR) to screen and triage people for pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). No published studies have compared multiple DL systems and populations. We conducted a retrospective evaluation of three DL systems (CAD4TB, Lunit INSIGHT, and qXR) for detecting TB-associated abnormalities in chest radiographs from outpatients in Nepal and Cameroon. All 1196 individuals received a Xpert MTB/RIF assay and a CXR read by two groups of radiologists and the DL systems. Xpert was used as the reference standard. The area under the curve of the three systems was similar: Lunit (0.94, 95% CI: 0.93-0.96), qXR (0.94, 95% CI: 0.92-0.97) and CAD4TB (0.92, 95% CI: 0.90-0.95). When matching the sensitivity of the radiologists, the specificities of the DL systems were significantly higher except for one. Using DL systems to read CXRs could reduce the number of Xpert MTB/RIF tests needed by 66% while maintaining sensitivity at 95% or better. Using a universal cutoff score resulted different performance in each site, highlighting the need to select scores based on the population screened. These DL systems should be considered by TB programs where human resources are constrained, and automated technology is available.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".