ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Development and validation of a machine learning model for community-based tuberculosis screening among persons aged ≥ 15 years in South Africa and Zambia.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Current tuberculosis (TB) screening tools, such as the WHO four-symptom screen (W4SS), lack sufficient sensitivity and specificity for effective community-based active case finding, contributing to both missed diagnoses and unnecessary diagnostic evaluations. This study aimed to develop and validate a machine learning (ML) model to improve TB risk prediction among persons aged ≥15 years in community settings of Zambia and South Africa. Methods: A large, harmonized dataset was created from four community-based TB prevalence surveys in South Africa and Zambia (N=169,813), restricted to individuals not under treatment at the time of survey. A binary reference outcome was defined based on available microbiological and radiographic data, grouping individuals as either 'Possible TB' or 'Unlikely TB'. An XGBoost model was trained on 80% (N=135,854) of the data using demographic, clinical, and socio-economic variables, and model interpretability was assessed using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values. Internal validation was performed using a 20% hold-out test set (N=33,959). Model performance was assessed using discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility measures compared to the W4SS and against WHO's 2025 Target Product Profile (TPP) for a tool in a two-step screening algorithm. Results: Overall, 16,413 (9.7%) of individuals were labelled as 'Possible TB'. On the test set, the XGBoost model yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 79.7% (95% CI: 78.7, 80.7), outperforming the W4SS (AUC 57.0%; 95% CI: 56.1, 57.8). The XGBoost model achieved 81.5% sensitivity (95% CI: 77.6, 84.9) at a 60% specificity threshold. This exceeded the W4SS, which achieved only 38.2% sensitivity (95% CI: 36.5, 39.9) on the same dataset. SHAP analysis identified age, previous TB treatment, times treated for TB and unemployment as the primary contributors to risk. Conclusion: The ML XGBoost model shows promise as a screening tool to support community-based active case finding activities prior to diagnostic testing. However, as performance remained below TPP targets, and adding variables, e.g. on geolocation, could be considered. Registration: The study was not registered.
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.