ArticleScientific reports2026
External validation of cough-based algorithms for pulmonary tuberculosis screening from the CODA TB DREAM challenge using cough data from Peru.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Conversational speech for respiratory triage in primary care: a pilot study.Frontiers in medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The COugh Diagnostic Algorithm for Tuberculosis (CODA TB) DREAM Challenge recently evaluated the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for tuberculosis (TB) screening using cough sounds. Eleven AI models were developed using a dataset of 733,756 cough sounds collected from 2143 adults from seven countries. This study evaluates the CODA Challenge AI models with an external independent cough dataset from Peru. Cough recordings from 303 coughing adults were collected from health facilities in Lima, Peru. The AUCs of the models ranged from 0.480 to 0.615, showing a decrease in performance compared to their performance when internally validated using the CODA Challenge, which ranged from 0.689 to 0.743. The best performing model in the CODA Challenge was also the best performing model in this external validation. Sub-group analyses revealed that models performed better in older (≥ 35 years) populations and among people with prior TB. The external validation revealed limitations in the generalizability of the CODA Challenge models to other settings. While some models showed promise, the overall performance decline highlights the need for continued model validation on external datasets. It also underscores the importance of developing context-specific models to account for population-specific factors that influence cough characteristics and TB prevalence.
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.