Breaking the threshold: Developing multivariable models using computer-aided chest X-ray analysis for tuberculosis triage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Computer-aided detection (CAD) software packages quantify tuberculosis (TB)-compatible chest X-ray (CXR) abnormality as continuous scores. In practice, a threshold value is selected for binary CXR classification. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of an alternative approach to applying CAD for TB triage: incorporating CAD scores in multivariable modeling. METHODS: We pooled individual patient data from four studies. Separately, for two commercial CAD, we used logistic regression to model microbiologically confirmed TB. Models included CAD score, study site, age, sex, human immunodeficiency virus status, and prior TB. We compared specificity at target sensitivities ≥90% between the multivariable model and the current threshold-based approach for CAD use. RESULTS: We included 4,733/5,640 (84%) participants with complete covariate data (median age 36 years; 45% female; 22% with prior TB; 22% people living with human immunodeficiency virus). A total of 805 (17%) had TB. Multivariable models demonstrated excellent performance (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve [95% confidence interval]: software A, 0.91 [0.90-0.93]; software B, 0.92 [0.91-0.93]). Compared with threshold scores, multivariable models increased specificity (e.g., at 90% sensitivity, threshold vs model specificity [95% confidence interval]: software A, 71% [68-74%] vs 75% [74-77%]; software B, 69% [63-75%] vs 75% [74-77%]). CONCLUSION: Using CAD scores in multivariable models outperformed the current practice of CAD-threshold-based CXR classification for TB diagnosis.
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 | 0.019 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".