ArticleIJTLD open2026
Post-market surveillance for literature on QuantiFERON TB Gold Plus: what improvements can artificial intelligence bring?
Article in IJTLD open, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPost-market surveillance (PMS) under the European Union In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) demands proactive, literature-based evidence, but mature assays like QuantiFERON TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus) generate volumes of peer-reviewed and other literature that can strain manual workflows.
methodsWe ran a comparative study of an AI-enabled literature-surveillance platform (jointly developed with Huma.ai called the Huma.ai Platform) versus manual search for QFT-Plus PMS. PubMed and PubMed Central were queried for publications in 2024; human studies published in English underwent duplicate screening and full-text appraisal. Outcomes were yield, precision, overlap/unique entries, and reviewer time.
resultsThe Huma.ai Platform retrieved 673 records, with 661 relevant to screening (98.21% precision). Manual searching retrieved 111, with 106 relevant to screening (95.50% precision): there were 103 shared and three manual-only items (metadata gaps). The Huma.ai Platform contributed 561 unique papers, 5 of which were excluded after full-text appraisal. In total, 664 articles were evaluated; no new safety signals were identified. Screening time averaged ∼16 s per article with Huma.ai Platform versus ∼60 s manually; full-text time (∼15 min per article) was similar.
conclusionAI-assisted surveillance substantially increases coverage and reduces screening effort while maintaining high precision. Thus it supports efficient, reproducible PMS for QFT-Plus.
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.