ArticleBMC global and public health2026
Bridging the analog divide: a comparison of printed X-ray films and digital images when using computer-aided detection software for tuberculosis screening.
Article in BMC global and public health, 2026. 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.
- Bridging the analog divide: a comparison of printed X-ray films and digital images when using computer-aided detection software for tuberculosis screening.BMC global and public health · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundComputer-aided detection (CAD) software provides scalable, standardized chest X-ray (CXR) interpretation, helping address the global shortage of radiologists and inter-reader variability. Printed X-ray films remain common in many low-resource settings, yet most CAD software can only process Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files. Genki software (DeepTek, India) is one of the few World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended CAD software capable of interpreting both DICOM files and photographs of printed X-ray films (Joint Photographic Experts Group [JPEG] files), but its performance using JPEG files has not been independently evaluated.
methodsWe evaluated Genki software using a test library of 1466 CXR images from adults screened for tuberculosis (TB) in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam. Each participant's TB status was determined using a composite reference standard, based on radiological findings and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra testing. Each CXR image was blindly re-read by 10 human readers and processed by Genki software using both DICOM and JPEG files. Genki software performance was evaluated using median abnormality scores, area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), and sensitivity/specificity comparisons at different abnormality score thresholds.
resultsGenki software abnormality scores were significantly higher when using JPEG files, but this did not translate into significant differences in AUCs between the file types (DICOM AUC = 0.94 vs JPEG AUC = 0.92, p = 0.190). When abnormality score thresholds were calibrated to match average human reader sensitivity (79.0%), Genki achieved significantly higher specificity with both DICOM (95.2% vs 84.8%, p < 0.001) and JPEG (92.1% vs 84.8%, p < 0.001) files. When the software's abnormality score thresholds were calibrated to achieve 90% sensitivity, Genki maintained high specificity with both DICOM (89.3%) and JPEG (81.1%) file types, meeting the minimum Target Product Profile (TPP) criteria for a high-sensitivity, high-specificity screening test.
conclusionsGenki software performs comparably when interpreting DICOM and JPEG files, outperforming human readers and meeting TPP criteria with both file types. This capability enhances its usability in resource-limited settings where digital infrastructure is lacking, supporting its broader deployment for TB screening. Further research is needed to assess real-world implementation feasibility and performance in diverse populations and clinical environments.
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.