Detection of tuberculosis using digital chest radiography: automated reading vs. interpretation by clinical officers
Open accessAbstract
SETTING: A busy urban health centre in Lusaka, Zambia. OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of automated reading (CAD4TB) with the interpretation of digital chest radiograph (CXR) by clinical officers for the detection of tuberculosis (TB). DESIGN: A retrospective analysis was performed on 161 subjects enrolled in a TB specimen bank study. CXRs were analysed using CAD4TB, which computed an image abnormality score (0-100). Four clinical officers scored the CXRs for abnormalities consistent with TB. We compared the automated readings and the readings by clinical officers against the bacteriological and radiological results used as reference. We report here the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and kappa (κ) statistics. RESULTS: Of 161 enrolled subjects, 97 had bacteriologically confirmed TB and 120 had abnormal CXR. The AUCs for CAD4TB and the clinical officers were respectively 0.73 and 0.65-0.75 in comparison with the bacteriological reference, and 0.91 and 0.89-0.94 in comparison with the radiological reference. P values indicated no significant differences, except for one clinical officer who performed significantly worse than CAD4TB (P < 0.05) using the bacteriological reference. κ values for CAD4TB and clinical officers with radiological reference were respectively 0.61 and 0.49-0.67. CONCLUSION: CXR assessment using CAD4TB and by clinical officers is comparable. CAD4TB has potential as a point-of-care test and for the automated identification of subjects who require further examinations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The majority of studies reporting on CAD threshold determination only included individuals who met criteria for microbiological testing.
“The majority of studies reporting on CAD threshold determination only included individuals who met some criteria for microbiological testing, such as having symptoms and/or abnormal chest radiographs [8, 16–27].”
From Computer-aided detection thresholds for digital chest radiography interpretation in tuberculosis diagnostic algorithms. (2024) · cites this paper as [18]
Cites
van Cleeff, M., Kivihya-Ndugga, L., Meme, H., Odhiambo, J., & Klatser, P. (2005) · BMC Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1186/1471-2334-5-111 · Cited by 199 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lakhani, P., & Sundaram, B. (2017) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2017162326 · Cited by 1,775 · see citing works
Rajpurkar, P., Irvin, J., Ball, R. L., Zhu, K., Yang, B., Mehta, H., Duan, T., Ding, D., Bagul, A., Langlotz, C. P., et al. (2018) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002686 · Cited by 1,449 · see citing works
Qin, Z. Z., Sander, M. S., Rai, B., Titahong, C. N., Sudrungrot, S., Laah, S. N., Adhikari, L. M., Carter, E. J., Puri, L., Codlin, A. J., et al. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-51503-3 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
Hwang, E. J., Park, S., Jin, K.-N., Kim, J. I., Choi, S. Y., Lee, J. H., Goo, J. M., Aum, J., Yim, J.-J., Park, C. M., et al. (2019) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciy967 · Cited by 241 · see citing works
Vanobberghen, F., Keter, A. K., Jacobs, B. K. M., Glass, T. R., Lynen, L., Law, I., Murphy, K., van Ginneken, B., Ayakaka, I., van Heerden, A., et al. (2024) · ERJ Open Research · doi:10.1183/23120541.00508-2023 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Maduskar, P., Muyoyeta, M., Ayles, H., Hogeweg, L., Peters-Bax, L., & van Ginneken, B.
- Affiliations
- Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
- University of Zambia (ZM)
- Corresponding author
- Maduskar, P.
- Venue
- The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease
- Published
- 2013-12-01
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1613-1620
- ISSN
- 1027-3719 (ISSN-L)
- 1815-7920
- OpenAlex
- W2319324829
- Cited by
- 77
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 5.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Tuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › COVID-19 diagnosis using AI
- Keywords
- tuberculosis detection, digital chest radiography, computer-aided diagnosis, CAD4TB, clinical officers, radiographic interpretation, automated image analysis, point-of-care testing, bacteriological confirmation, diagnostic accuracy
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Clinical Competence, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Male, Prognosis, Retrospective Studies, Radiography, Thoracic, Tuberculosis, Pulmonary, Zambia, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Treatment Outcome, Urban Health Services, Area Under Curve, Automation, Laboratory
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