ArticleInsights into imaging2026
Development of an expert-annotated chest X-ray dataset to support AI validation in tuberculosis diagnosis.
Article in Insights into imaging, 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess inter-rater agreement and diagnostic performance of six United States National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-certified B readers (physicians certified in standardized chest X-ray (CXR) classification for pneumoconiosis) in diagnosing tuberculosis (TB) on CXR, with the goal of developing a reliable dataset to support external validation of artificial intelligence (AI) models for TB detection. MATERIALS AND
methods1097 CXRs from five institutions were analyzed by six B readers. Patients aged ≥ 15 years were included, excluding those with HIV or opportunistic infections. CXRs were classified as unremarkable or abnormal. Abnormalities were categorized using a modified International Labor Organization classification and classified as consistent or inconsistent with TB. Microbiological references included sputum smears, cultures, or molecular tests. Descriptive statistics summarized the CXR and microbiological findings. Inter-rater agreement was assessed with Fleiss' kappa. Diagnostic performance was evaluated by comparing CXR findings to microbiological references.
resultsOf the 3117 readings, 69% of CXRs were abnormal, and 31% were unremarkable. Microbiological results confirmed that 87% of abnormal CXRs were TB cases, while 83% of unremarkable CXRs were non-TB. Inter-rater agreements were κ = 0.83 for all findings, κ = 0.67 for findings consistent with TB, and κ = 0.76 for active TB findings. For findings consistent with TB, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy ranged from 77.2% to 91.1%, 87.4% to 98.6%, and 84.1% to 90.1%, respectively.
conclusionB readers exhibited strong agreement and high accuracy in diagnosing TB on CXR, providing a robust dataset that could be used for external validation of AI models in TB diagnosis. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: With substantial inter-rater agreement and strong diagnostic performance, B readers' interpretations of CXRs provide a reliable dataset to support external validation of AI models for TB diagnosis. KEY POINTS: B readers can provide a reliable reference for validating AI models in TB diagnosis. Less variability and high accuracy were observed among B readers in CXR-based TB diagnosis.
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.