Expanding molecular diagnostic coverage for tuberculosis by combining computer-aided chest radiography and sputum specimen pooling: a modeling study from four high-burden countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In 2022, fewer than half of persons with tuberculosis (TB) had access to molecular diagnostic tests for TB due to their high costs. Studies have found that the use of artificial intelligence (AI) software for chest X-ray (CXR) interpretation and sputum specimen pooling can each reduce the cost of testing. We modeled the combination of both strategies to estimate potential savings in consumables that could be used to expand access to molecular diagnostics. Methods: We obtained Xpert testing and positivity data segmented into deciles by AI probability scores for TB from the community- and healthcare facility-based active case finding conducted in Bangladesh, Nigeria, Viet Nam, and Zambia. AI scores in the model were based on CAD4TB version 7 (Zambia) and qXR (all other countries). We modeled four ordinal screening and testing approaches involving AI-aided CXR interpretation to indicate individual and pooled testing. Setting a false negative rate of 5%, for each approach we calculated additional and cumulative savings over the baseline of universal Xpert testing, as well as the theoretical expansion in diagnostic coverage. Results: In each country, the optimal screening and testing approach was to use AI to rule out testing in deciles with low AI scores and to guide pooled vs individual testing in persons with moderate and high AI scores, respectively. This approach yielded cumulative savings in Xpert tests over baseline ranging from 50.8% in Zambia to 57.5% in Nigeria and 61.5% in Bangladesh and Viet Nam. Using these savings, diagnostic coverage theoretically could be expanded by 34% to 160% across the different approaches and countries. Conclusions: Using AI software data generated during CXR interpretation to inform a differentiated pooled testing strategy may optimize TB diagnostic test use, and could extend molecular tests to more people who need them. The optimal AI thresholds and pooled testing strategy varied across countries, which suggests that bespoke screening and testing approaches may be needed for differing populations and settings. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s44263-024-00081-2.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".