Diagnostic Accuracy of the Truenat MTB Plus Assay and Comparison with the Xpert MTB/RIF Assay to Detect Tuberculosis among Hospital Outpatients in Cameroon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Truenat MTB Plus assay is a rapid molecular test that has been recommended by the World Health Organization since 2020 as an initial test to detect tuberculosis (TB). The WHO highlighted the need to further evaluate assay performance to inform future recommendations, including in people living with HIV and compared to the Xpert MTB/RIF assay. We conducted a prospective evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the Truenat assay in Cameroon, a country with a high burden of HIV/TB. Adult outpatients were recruited at four hospitals; demographic information and medical history were collected, and participants produced two sputum specimens. Truenat and Xpert testing was performed on the same specimen, and performance was compared to TB culture as the reference standard. From November 2019 to December 2020, 945 participants were enrolled and included in the analysis. Among 251 participants with culture-positive TB, the sensitivity of Truenat MTB Plus was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86 to 94%), similar to Xpert (90%; 95% CI, 86 to 93%). Among 74 HIV-positive participants with culture-positive TB, the sensitivity of Truenat MTB Plus was 85% (95% CI, 75 to 92%) compared to 81% for Xpert (95% CI, 70 to 89%). Among 47 participants with smear-negative TB, the sensitivity of Truenat MTB Plus was 55% (95% CI, 40 to 70%), similar to Xpert (53%; 95% CI, 38 to 68%). The specificity of Truenat MTB Plus was 96% (95% CI, 94 to 97%) compared to 99% (95% CI, 97 to 99%) for Xpert. For TB detection compared to the reference standard of TB culture, the performance of the Truenat MTB Plus assay was similar to that of Xpert in this population, including among people living with HIV.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".