ArticleScientific reports2023
COVID-19 screening in low resource settings using artificial intelligence for chest radiographs and point-of-care blood tests.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems for detection of COVID-19 using chest X-Ray (CXR) imaging and point-of-care blood tests were applied to data from four low resource African settings. The performance of these systems to detect COVID-19 using various input data was analysed and compared with antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests. Participants were tested using the gold standard of RT-PCR test (nasopharyngeal swab) to determine whether they were infected with SARS-CoV-2. A total of 3737 (260 RT-PCR positive) participants were included. In our cohort, AI for CXR images was a poor predictor of COVID-19 (AUC = 0.60), since the majority of positive cases had mild symptoms and no visible pneumonia in the lungs. AI systems using differential white blood cell counts (WBC), or a combination of WBC and C-Reactive Protein (CRP) both achieved an AUC of 0.74 with a suggested optimal cut-off point at 83% sensitivity and 63% specificity. The antigen-RDT tests in this trial obtained 65% sensitivity at 98% specificity. This study is the first to validate AI tools for COVID-19 detection in an African setting. It demonstrates that screening for COVID-19 using AI with point-of-care blood tests is feasible and can operate at a higher sensitivity level than antigen testing.
Indexed as
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.