Back

Diagnostic accuracy of Chest X-Ray Computer Aided Detection software and blood biomarkers for detection of prevalent and incident tuberculosis in household contacts followed up for 5 years

Macpherson, L.; Kik, S. V.; Quartagno, M.; Lakay, F.; Jaftha, M.; Yende, N.; Galant, S.; Aziz, S.; Daroowala, R.; Court, R.; Taliep, A.; Serole, K.; Goliath, R. T.; Omar Davies, N.; Jackson, A.; Douglass, E.; Sossen, B.; Mukasa, S.; Thienemann, F.; Song, T.; Ruhwald, M.; Wilkinson, R. J.; Coussens, A. K.; Esmail, H.; Imaging of TB household contacts group,

2024-07-01 infectious diseases Community evaluation
10.1101/2024.06.30.24309731 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundWHO Tuberculosis (TB) screening guidelines recommend computer-aided detection (CAD) software for chest radiograph (CXR) interpretation. However, studies evaluating their diagnostic and prognostic accuracy are limited. MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study of household TB contacts in South Africa. Participants all underwent baseline CXR and sputum investigation (routine [single spontaneous] and enhanced [additionally 2-3 induced] sputum investigation and passive and active follow-up for incident TB. CXR were processed comparing 3 CAD softwares (CAD4TBv7.0, qXRv3.0.0, and Lunit INSIGHT CXR 3.1.4.111). We evaluated their performance to detect routine and enhanced prevalent, and incident TB, comparing the performance to blood-based biomarkers (Xpert MTB host-response, Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate, C-Reactive Protein, QuantiFERON) in a subgroup. Findings483 participants were followed-up for 4.6 years (median). There were 23 prevalent (7 routinely diagnosed) and 38 incident TB cases. The AUC ROC to identify prevalent TB for CAD4TB, qXR and Lunit INSIGHT CXR were 0.87 (95% CI 0.77-0.96), 0.88 (95% CI 0.79-0.97) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.83-0.99) respectively. >30% with scores above recommended CAD thresholds who were bacteriologically negative on routine baseline sputum were subsequently diagnosed by enhanced baseline sputum investigation or during follow-up. The AUC performance of baseline CAD to identify incident cases ranged between 0.60-0.65. The diagnostic performance of CAD for prevalent TB was superior to blood-based biomarkers. InterpretationOur findings suggest that the potential of CAD-CXR screening for TB is not maximised as a high proportion of those above current thresholds but with a negative routine confirmatory sputum have true TB disease that may benefit intervention. FundingUKRI-MRC SummaryWe found that the diagnostic accuracy of CAD-CXR to identify prevalent TB cases in household TB contacts was high but >30% with scores above recommended CAD thresholds who were bacteriologically negative on routine testing baseline were subsequently diagnosed suggest that the potential of CAD-CXR screening is not maximised.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
28.3%
2
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
10.7%
3
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
5.0%
4
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.4%
5
The Lancet Microbe
43 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
50% of probability mass above
6
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.5%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.4%
8
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.4%
9
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.4%
10
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.1%
11
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
12
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.9%
13
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
14
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
15
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
16
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
17
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
18
Infectious Diseases
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
19
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
20
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
21
New England Journal of Medicine
50 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
22
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
23
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
24
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
25
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 72%
0.8%
26
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
39 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
27
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
28
EBioMedicine
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
29
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
30
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%