%0 Journal Article %A Sifrash Meseret Gelaw %A Sandra V. Kik %A Morten Ruhwald %A Stefano Ongarello %A Tesfa Semagne Egzertegegne %A Olga Gorbacheva %A Christopher Gilpin %A Nina Marano %A Scott Lee %A Christina R. Phares %A Victoria Medina %A Bhaskar Amatya %A Claudia M. Denkinger %T Diagnostic accuracy of three computer-aided detection systems for detecting pulmonary tuberculosis on chest radiography when used for screening: analysis of an international, multicenter migrants screening study %D 2022 %R 10.1101/2022.03.30.22273191 %J medRxiv %P 2022.03.30.22273191 %X The aim of this study was to independently evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of three artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer aided detection (CAD) systems for detecting pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) on global migrants screening chest x-ray (CXR) cases.Retrospective clinical data and CXR images were collected from the International Organization for Migration (IOM) pre-migration health assessment TB screening global database for US-bound migrants. A total of 2,812 participants were included in the dataset, of which 1,769 (62.9%) had accompanying microbiological test results. All CXRs were interpreted by three CAD systems (CAD4TB v6, Lunit INSIGHT v4.9.0, and qXR v2) offline and re-interpreted by two expert radiologists in a blinded fashion. The performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC), estimates of sensitivity and specificity at different CAD thresholds against both microbiological and radiological reference standards (MRS and RadRS, respectively).The area under the curve against MRS was highest for Lunit (0.85; 95% CI 0.83−0.87), followed by qXR (0.75; 95% CI 0.72−0.77) and then CAD4TB (0.71; 95% CI 0.68−0.73). At a set specificity of 70%, Lunit had the highest sensitivity (54.5%; 95% CI 51.7–57.3); at a set sensitivity of 90%, specificity was also highest for Lunit (81.4%; 95% CI 77.9–84.6). The CAD systems performed comparable to sensitivity (98.3%), and except CAD4TB, to specificity (13.7 %) of expert radiologist. Similar trends were observed when using RadRS.In conclusion, the study demonstrated that the three CAD systems had broadly similar diagnostic accuracy with regard to TB screening, and comparable accuracy to expert radiologist. Compared with different reference standards, Lunit performed better than both qXR and CAD4TB against MRS, and better than qXR against RadRS. Overall, these findings suggest that CAD systems could be a useful tool for TB screening programs in remote, high TB prevalent places where access to expert radiologists may be limited.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, Reference Number: PDP15CH14. The funder 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:The study protocol received ethical approval from McGill University Health Centre Institutional Review Board (project number 2019-4649). Additionally, the study has obtained IOM legal council approval to use participant?s data and CDC approval for use of data from the pre-migration health assessment program.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 ApplicableThe data used for this study was obtained from IOM?s pre-migration health assessment of migrants bound for the United States after getting approval from the IOM legal counsel and CDC for the purposes of this study only. The IOM data protection policy restricts sharing data with any third party. %U https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/04/02/2022.03.30.22273191.full.pdf