RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 “Similar performances but markedly different triaging thresholds in three CAD4TB versions risk systematic errors in TB screening programs”
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.04.29.22274472
DO 10.1101/2022.04.29.22274472
A1 Jana Fehr
A1 Emily B. Wong
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/29/2022.04.29.22274472.abstract
AB Tuberculosis (TB) screening programs may apply computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) tools on chest radiographs to select people for microbiological sputum examination using a pre-selected triaging threshold. CAD software-updates are frequently introduced and it is unknown whether their use requires adjustment of triaging thresholds. In a community-based screening program in South Africa, we compared the scores between the three recent CAD4TB versions (v5, v6, and v7) and assessed their performance to identify microbiologically-confirmed TB. The performance of all versions was similar (v5: AUC 0.78, v6: AUC 0.79, v7: AUC 0.80; p-values>0.05), but along a 0-100 point scale, each had markedly different score distributions and optimal triaging thresholds (v5: 40, v6: 47, v7: 20). This has the potential to cause confusion within TB screening programs as these tools are increasingly adopted and new versions released. Independent guidance for adapting CAD triaging thresholds for frequently released software updates is needed.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe community-screening program 'Vukuzazi' is funded by the Africa Health Research Institute, the Wellcome Trust (201433/Z/16/Z), and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1175182). Additional funders include NIAID (K08AI118538) and FIC (TW011687), National Institutes of Health, and Cascade IMPAc-TB Center (Contract # 75N93019C00070). The funders had no role in study design, data analysis and interpretation, or writing of the report.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethics committees of the University of KwaZulu-Natal Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (BE560/17), the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Ethics Committee (14722), and the Partners Institutional Review Board (2018P001802) gave ethical approval for this work.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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesThe Vukuzazi screening protocol as well as the dataset analyzed during the current study may be accessed via the AHRI Data Repository at https://data.ahri.org/index.php/catalog/990 upon approval of proposed analyses by the Vukuzazi Scientific Steering Committee and completion of a data access agreement. https://data.ahri.org/index.php/catalog/990