ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Performance of Universal and Stratified Computer-Aided Detection Thresholds for Chest X-Ray-Based Tuberculosis Screening: A Cross-Sectional Diagnostic Accuracy Study.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Computer-aided detection (CAD) software analyzes chest X-rays for features suggestive of tuberculosis (TB) and provides a numeric abnormality score. However, estimates of CAD accuracy for TB screening are hindered by the lack of confirmatory data among people with lower X-ray scores, including those without symptoms. Additionally, the appropriate X-ray score thresholds for obtaining further testing may vary according to population and client characteristics. Methods: We screened for TB in Ugandan individuals aged ≥15 years using portable chest X-rays with CAD (qXR v3). Participants were offered screening regardless of their symptoms. Those with X-ray scores above a threshold of 0.1 (range, 0 - 1) were asked to provide sputum for Xpert Ultra testing. We estimated the diagnostic accuracy of CAD for detecting Xpert-positive TB when using the same threshold for all individuals (under different assumptions about TB prevalence among people with X-ray scores <0.1), and compared this estimate to age- and/or sex-stratified approaches. Findings: Of 52,835 participants screened for TB using CAD, 8,949 (16.9%) had X-ray scores ≥0.1. Of 7,219 participants with valid Xpert Ultra results, 382 (5.3%) were Xpert-positive, including 81 with trace results. Assuming 0.1% of participants with X-ray scores <0.1 would have been Xpert-positive if tested, qXR had an estimated AUC of 0.92 (95% confidence interval 0.90-0.94) for Xpert-positive TB. Stratifying X-ray score thresholds according to age and sex improved accuracy; for example, at 96.1% specificity, estimated sensitivity was 75.0% for a universal threshold (of ≥0.65) versus 76.9% for thresholds stratified by age and sex (p=0.046). Interpretation: The accuracy of CAD for TB screening among all screening participants, including those without symptoms or abnormal chest X-rays, is higher than previously estimated. Stratifying X-ray score thresholds based on client characteristics such as age and sex could further improve accuracy, enabling a more effective and personalized approach to TB screening. Funding: National Institutes of Health.
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.