TY - JOUR T1 - Diagnostic accuracy of chest X-ray interpretation for tuberculosis by three artificial intelligence-based software in a screening use-case: an individual patient meta-analysis of global data JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2022.01.24.22269730 SP - 2022.01.24.22269730 AU - Sandra V. Kik AU - Sifrash M. Gelaw AU - Morten Ruhwald AU - Rinn Song AU - Faiz Ahmad Khan AU - Rob van Hest AU - Violet Chihota AU - Nguyen Viet Nhung AU - Aliasgar Esmail AU - Anna Marie Celina Garfin AU - Guy B. Marks AU - Olga Gorbacheva AU - Onno W. Akkerman AU - Kgaugelo Moropane AU - Le Thi Ngoc Anh AU - Keertan Dheda AU - Greg J. Fox AU - Nina Marano AU - Knut Lönnroth AU - Frank Cobelens AU - Andrea Benedetti AU - Puneet Dewan AU - Stefano Ongarello AU - Claudia M. Denkinger Y1 - 2022/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/27/2022.01.24.22269730.abstract N2 - Background Chest X-ray (CXR) screening is a useful diagnostic tool to test individuals at high risk of tuberculosis (TB), yet image interpretation requires trained human readers who are in short supply in many high TB burden countries. Therefore, CXR interpretation by computer-aided detection software (CAD) may overcome some of these challenges, but evidence on its accuracy is still limited.We established a CXR library with images and metadata from individuals and risk groups that underwent TB screening in a variety of countries to assess the diagnostic accuracy of three commercial CAD solutions through an individual participant meta-analysis.Methods and findings We collected digital CXRs and demographic and clinical data from 6 source studies involving a total of 2756 participants, 1753 (64%) of whom also had microbiological test information. All CXR images were analyzed with CAD4TB v6 (Delft Imaging), Lunit Insight CXR TB algorithm v4.9.0 (Lunit Inc.), and qXR v2 (Qure.ai) and re-read by an expert radiologist who was blinded to the initial CXR reading, the CAD scores, and participant information. While the performance of CAD varied across source studies, the pooled, meta-analyzed summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the three products against a microbiological reference standard were similar, with area under the curves (AUCs) of 76.4 (95% CI 72.1-80.3) for CAD4TB, 83.3 (95% CI 78.4-87.2) for Lunit, and 76.4 (95% CI 72.1-80.3) for qXR. None of the CAD products, or the radiologists, met the targets for a triage test of 90% sensitivity and 70% specificity. At the same sensitivity of the expert radiologist (94.0%), all CAD had slightly lower point estimates for specificity (22.4% (95% CI 16.9-29.0) for CAD4TB, 34.6% (95% CI 25.3-45.1) for qXR, and 41.0% (95% CI 30.1-53.0) for Lunit compared to 45.6% for the expert radiologist). At the same specificity of 45.6%, all CAD products had lower point estimates for sensitivity but overlapping CIs with the sensitivity estimate of the radiologist.Conclusions We showed that, overall, three commercially available CAD products had a reasonable diagnostic accuracy for microbiologically confirmed pulmonary TB and may achieve a sensitivity and specificity that approximates those of experienced radiologists. While threshold setting and cost-effectiveness modelling are needed to inform the optimal implementation of CAD products as part of screening programs, the availability of CAD will assist in scaling up active case finding for TB and hence contribute to TB elimination in these settings.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study has been partially funded through a grant FIND received from the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (https://english.rvo.nl/), Reference Number: PDP15CH14. RS was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (https://www.nichd.nih.gov/), Bethesda, MD, USA (K23HD072802). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, the decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.Not ApplicableThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:All source studies contributing to the FIND CXR library obtained local ethical approval to allow sharing of the data. In addition, the study protocol for the ECAD-TB project was approved by the McGill University Health Centre International Review Board (protocol number 2019-4649).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.Not ApplicableI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Not ApplicableI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.Not ApplicableData cannot be shared publicly because FIND would like to re-use the DICOM library for future independent performance assessments of new AI versions or products to inform WHO policy updates and therefore the content of the data cannot be made available to AI developers in this field. ER -