ArticleIJTLD open2024
Detection of other pathologies when utilising computer-assisted digital solutions for TB screening.
Article in IJTLD open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Infectious Disease Care: Selected Applications in Tuberculosis, Sepsis, and Antimicrobial Stewardship.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The role of medical imaging in translational research into early pulmonary tuberculosis.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2026Review
- 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComputer-aided detection (CAD) tools for TB detection have the potential to enable screening programmes and reduce the diagnostic gap in settings where access to radiologists is limited. However, there are concerns that other common chest X-ray (CXR) abnormalities not due to TB may be missed.
methodsWe assessed the performance of three commercialised CAD tools (qXR, INSIGHT CXR and DrAID
resultsThe 517 CXRs included were deemed abnormal by the three CAD with a sensitivity of respectively 97% (95% CI 95-98), 94% (95% CI 91-95), and 87% (95% CI 84-90) for INSIGHT CXR, qXR, and DrAID. The CAD generally detected abnormalities in patients with critical diagnoses such as lung cancer or heart failure. Performance for detecting other abnormalities was variable.
conclusionThis study showed that the three CAD tools identified CXRs as abnormal when diseases other than TB were present. Our findings alleviate ethical concerns of missing abnormalities other than TB when using commercially available CAD for TB screening and show their potential broader applicability.
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.