Cited by 152Tuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyCOVID-19 diagnosis using AIRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

An automated tuberculosis screening strategy combining X-ray-based computer-aided detection and clinical information

Open access
Melendez, Jaime, Sánchez, Clara I., Philipsen, Rick H. H. M., Maduskar, Pragnya, Dawson, Rodney, Theron, Grant, Dheda, Keertan, van Ginneken, Bram·2016·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Lack of human resources and radiological interpretation expertise impair tuberculosis (TB) screening programmes in TB-endemic countries. Computer-aided detection (CAD) constitutes a viable alternative for chest radiograph (CXR) reading. However, no automated techniques that exploit the additional clinical information typically available during screening exist. To address this issue and optimally exploit this information, a machine learning-based combination framework is introduced. We have evaluated this framework on a database containing 392 patient records from suspected TB subjects prospectively recruited in Cape Town, South Africa. Each record comprised a CAD score, automatically computed from a CXR and 12 clinical features. Comparisons with strategies relying on either CAD scores or clinical information alone were performed. Our results indicate that the combination framework outperforms the individual strategies in terms of the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (0.84 versus 0.78 and 0.72), specificity at 95% sensitivity (49% versus 24% and 31%) and negative predictive value (98% versus 95% and 96%). Thus, it is believed that combining CAD and clinical information to estimate the risk of active disease is a promising tool for TB screening.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/srep25265

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. World Health Organization. Systematic screening for active tuberculosis: principles and recommendations. (2013). 25996015
  2. van’t Hoog A. H. et al. A systematic review of the sensitivity and specificity of symptom- and chest-radiography screening for active pulmonary tuberculosis in HIV-negative persons and persons with unknown HIV status. (2013). PMC9109771 35320584
  3. Corbett E. L. & MacPherson P. Tuberculosis screening in high human immunodeficiency virus prevalence settings: turning promise into reality. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung. Dis. 17, 1125– 1138 (2013). 23928165 PMC3966511
  4. van’t Hoog A. H. et al. High sensitivity of chest radiograph reading by clinical officers in a tuberculosis prevalence survey. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung. Dis. 15, 1308– 1314 (2011). 22283886
  5. Maduskar P. et al. Detection of tuberculosis with digital chest radiography: automatic reading versus interpretation by clinical officers. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung. Dis. 17, 1613– 1620 (2013). 24200278
  6. Breuninger M. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computer-aided detection of pulmonary tuberculosis in chest radiographs: a validation study from sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS One 9, e106381 (2014). 25192172 PMC4156349
  7. Muyoyeta M. et al. The sensitivity and specificity of using a computer aided diagnosis program for automatically scoring chest X-rays of presumptive TB patients compared with Xpert MTB/RIF in Lusaka Zambia. PLoS One 9, e93757 (2014). 24705629 PMC3976315
  8. van’t Hoog A. H. et al. Screening strategies for tuberculosis prevalence surveys: the value of chest radiography and symptoms. PLoS One 7, e38691 (2012). 22792158 PMC3391193
  9. Theron G. et al. Feasibility, accuracy, and clinical effect of point-of-care Xpert MTB/RIF testing for tuberculosis in primary-care settings in Africa: a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 383, 424– 435 (2014). 24176144
  10. van Ginneken B. et al. Automated scoring of chest radiographs for tuberculosis prevalence surveys: a combined approach. In: Fifth International Workshop on Pulmonary Image Analysis 9– 19 (2013).
  11. Wejse C. et al. TBscore: signs and symptoms from tuberculosis patients in a low-resource setting have predictive value and may be used to assess clinical course. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 40, 111– 120 (2008). 17852907
  12. Peng H., Long F. & Ding C. Feature selection based on mutual information: criteria of max-dependency, max-relevance, and min-redundancy. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 27, 1226– 1238 (2005). 16119262
  13. Jain A. K., Duin R. P. W. & Mao J. Statistical pattern recognition: a review. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 22, 4– 37 (2000).
  14. Kittler J., Hatef M., Duin R. P. W. & Matas J. On combining classifiers. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 20, 226– 239 (1998).
  15. Warren R. M. & Duffy S. W. Comparison of single reading with double reading of mammograms, and change in effectiveness with experience. Br. J. Radiol. 68, 958– 962 (1995). 7496693
  16. Wormanns D., Ludwig K., Beyer F., Heindel W. & Diederich S. Detection of pulmonary nodules at multirow-detector CT: effectiveness of double reading to improve sensitivity at standard-dose and low-dose chest CT. Eur. Radiol. 15, 14– 22 (2005). 15526207
  17. Rutter C. M. Bootstrap estimation of diagnostic accuracy with patient-clustered data. Acad. Radiol. 7, 413– 419 (2000). 10845400
  18. Samuelson F., Petrick N. & Paquerault S. Advantages and examples of resampling for CAD evaluation. In: Proc. IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging 492– 495 (2007).
  19. den Boon S. et al. An evaluation of symptom and chest radiographic screening in tuberculosis prevalence surveys. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung. Dis. 10, 876– 882 (2006). 16898372

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Melendez, J., Sánchez, C. I., Philipsen, R. H. H. M., Maduskar, P., Dawson, R., Theron, G., Dheda, K., & van Ginneken, B.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • University of Cape Town (ZA)
Corresponding author
Melendez, Jaime
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2016-04-29
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
25265-25265
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2342469653
Cited by
152
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8
FWCI
10.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • SUNScholar (Stellenbosch University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (IP2009.32040.009)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Tuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › COVID-19 diagnosis using AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Keywords
tuberculosis screening, computer-aided detection, chest radiograph, clinical data, radiographic interpretation, South Africa
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Algorithms, Automation, Humans, Mass Screening, Prospective Studies, Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, South Africa, Radiography, Thoracic, Tuberculosis, Pulmonary

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review