Computer-aided diagnostic accuracy of pulmonary tuberculosis on chest radiography among lower respiratory tract symptoms patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even though the Gaza Strip is a low pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) burden region, it is well-known that TB is primarily a socioeconomic problem associated with overcrowding, poor hygiene, a lack of fresh water, and limited access to healthcare, which is the typical case in the Gaza Strip. Therefore, this study aimed at assessing the accuracy of the automatic software computer-aided detection for tuberculosis (CAD4TB) in diagnosing pulmonary TB on chest radiography and compare the CAD4TB software reading with the results of geneXpert. Using a census sampling method, the study was conducted in radiology departments in the Gaza Strip hospitals between 1 December 2022 and 31 March 2023. A digital X-ray, printer, and online X-ray system backed by CAD4TBv6 software were used to screen patients with lower respiratory tract symptoms. GeneXpert analysis was performed for all patients having a score > 40. A total of 1,237 patients presenting with lower respiratory tract symptoms participated in this current study. Chest X-ray readings showed that 7.8% ( n = 96) were presumptive for TB. The CAD4TBv6 scores showed that 11.8% ( n = 146) of recruited patients were presumptive for TB. GeneXpert testing on sputum samples showed that 6.2% ( n = 77) of those with a score > 40 on CAD4TB were positive for pulmonary TB. Significant differences were found in chest X-ray readings, CAD4TBv6 scores, and GeneXpert results among sociodemographic and health status variables ( P -value < 0.05). The study showed that the incidence rate of TB in the Gaza Strip is 3.5 per 100,000 population in the Gaza strip. The sensitivity of the CAD4TBv6 score and the symptomatic review for tuberculosis with a threshold score of >40 is 80.2%, and the specificity is 94.0%. The positive Likelihood Ratio is 13.3%, Negative Likelihood Ratio is 0.2 with 7.8% prevalence. Positive Predictive Value is 52.7%, Negative Predictive Value is 98.3%, and accuracy is 92.9%. In a resource-limited country with a high burden of neglected disease, combining chest X-ray readings by CAD4TB and symptomatology is extremely valuable for screening a population at risk. CAD4TB is noticeably more efficient than other methods for TB screening and early diagnosis in people who would otherwise go undetected.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".