ArticlePLOS digital health2025
A comparison of CXR-CAD software to radiologists in identifying COVID-19 in individuals evaluated for Sars CoV-2 infection in Malawi and Zambia.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence for tuberculosis management in Africa: opportunities, challenges, and implementation.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Autonomous chest x-ray image classification, capabilities and prospects: rapid evidence assessment.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AI based software, including computer aided detection software for chest radiographs (CXR-CAD), was developed during the pandemic to improve COVID-19 case finding and triage. In high burden TB countries, the use of highly portable CXR and computer aided detection software has been adopted more broadly to improve the screening and triage of individuals for TB, but there is little evidence in these settings regarding COVID-19 CAD performance. We performed a multicenter, retrospective cross-over study evaluating CXRs from individuals at risk for COVID-19. We evaluated performance of CAD software and radiologists in comparison to COVID-19 laboratory results in 671 individuals evaluated for COVID-19 at sites in Zambia and Malawi between January 2021 and June 2022. All CXRs were interpreted by an expert radiologist and two commercially available COVID-19 CXR-CAD software. Radiologists interpreted CXRs for COVID-19 with a sensitivity of 73% (95% CI: 69%- 76%) and specificity of 49% (95% CI: 40%-58%). One CAD software (CAD2) showed performance in diagnosing COVID-19 that was comparable to that of radiologists, (AUC-ROC of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.65-0.75)), while a second (CAD1) showed inferior performance (AUC-ROC of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.52-0.63)). Agreement between CAD software and radiologists was moderate for diagnosing COVID-19, and agreement was very good in differentiating normal and abnormal CXRs in this high prevalent population. The study highlights the potential of CXR-CAD as a tool to support effective triage of individuals in Malawi and Zambia during the pandemic, particularly for distinguishing normal from abnormal CXRs. These findings suggest that while current AI-based diagnostics like CXR-CAD show promise, their effectiveness varies significantly. In order to better prepare for future pandemics, there is a need for representative training data to optimize performance in key populations, and ongoing data collection to maintain diagnostic accuracy, especially as new disease strains emerge.
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.