ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2023
Accuracy of digital chest x-ray analysis with artificial intelligence software as a triage and screening tool in hospitalized patients being evaluated for tuberculosis in Lima, Peru.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Tuberculosis (TB) transmission in healthcare facilities is common in high-incidence countries. Yet, the optimal approach for identifying inpatients who may have TB is unclear. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of qXR (Qure.ai, India) computer-aided detection (CAD) software versions 3.0 and 4.0 (v3 and v4) as a triage and screening tool within the FAST (Find cases Actively, Separate safely, and Treat effectively) transmission control strategy. Methods: We prospectively enrolled two cohorts of patients admitted to a tertiary hospital in Lima, Peru: one group had cough or TB risk factors (triage) and the other did not report cough or TB risk factors (screening). We evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of qXR for the diagnosis of pulmonary TB using culture and Xpert as primary and secondary reference standards, including stratified analyses based on risk factors. Results: In the triage cohort (n=387), qXR v4 sensitivity was 0.91 (59/65, 95% CI 0.81-0.97) and specificity was 0.32 (103/322, 95% CI 0.27-0.37) using culture as reference standard. There was no difference in the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) between qXR v3 and qXR v4 with either a culture or Xpert reference standard. In the screening cohort (n=191), only one patient had a positive Xpert result, but specificity in this cohort was high (>90%). A high prevalence of radiographic lung abnormalities, most notably opacities (81%), consolidation (62%), or nodules (58%), was detected by qXR on digital CXR images from the triage cohort. Conclusions: qXR had high sensitivity but low specificity as a triage in hospitalized patients with cough or TB risk factors. Screening patients without cough or risk factors in this setting had a low diagnostic yield. These findings further support the need for population and setting-specific thresholds for CAD programs.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.