Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVES: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a leading infectious cause of death, with drug-resistant TB threatening control gains worldwide Rapid, accurate prediction of resistance to first-line agents is essential to guide therapy. The objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the diagnostic performance of machine learning (ML) algorithms trained on genomic data for predicting phenotypic resistance to the antitubercular drugs. METHODS: We searched 4 databases for original studies applying ML to whole-genome or targeted sequencing for resistance prediction against rifampicin (RIF), isoniazid (INH), ethambutol (EMB), streptomycin (STM), and other routinely tested drugs. Random-effects meta-analyses (REML) pooled sensitivity and specificity; Area Under Curve (AUC) was meta-analysed after logit transformation. Publication bias was examined via funnel plots plus Egger's and Begg's tests with trim-and-fill adjustment. RESULTS: Seven eligible studies were included. Pooled performance was strongest for RIF and INH (RIF: sensitivity 0.90, specificity 0.95; INH: sensitivity 0.88, specificity 0.93). EMB and STM showed lower sensitivities despite reasonable AUCs. Forest plots for AUC (including logit scale), sensitivity, and specificity demonstrated drug-wise variation. Across studies, specificity (mean ≈ 0.92) exceeded sensitivity (mean ≈ 0.75). Bias diagnostics revealed marked funnel plot asymmetry; trim-and-fill imputation added 22, 29, and 23 studies for AUC, sensitivity, and specificity, respectively, yielding adjusted pooled estimates of ∼0.89 (AUC), 0.70 (sensitivity), and 0.93 (specificity). CONCLUSIONS: ML models trained on genomic data demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy and robust discriminative ability for predicting first-line drug resistance-particularly for RIF and INH-although sensitivity remains variable across drugs and model types. Standardized external validation and calibration are needed before broad clinical deployment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pandey et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: