Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
There have been few independent evaluations of computer-aided detection (CAD) software for tuberculosis (TB) screening, despite the rapidly expanding array of available CAD solutions. We developed a test library of chest X-ray (CXR) images which was blindly re-read by two TB clinicians with different levels of experience and then processed by 12 CAD software solutions. Using Xpert MTB/RIF results as the reference standard, we compared the performance characteristics of each CAD software against both an Expert and Intermediate Reader, using cut-off thresholds which were selected to match the sensitivity of each human reader. Six CAD systems performed on par with the Expert Reader (Qure.ai, DeepTek, Delft Imaging, JF Healthcare, OXIPIT, and Lunit) and one additional software (Infervision) performed on par with the Intermediate Reader only. Qure.ai, Delft Imaging and Lunit were the only software to perform significantly better than the Intermediate Reader. The majority of these CAD software showed significantly lower performance among participants with a past history of TB. The radiography equipment used to capture the CXR image was also shown to affect performance for some CAD software. TB program implementers now have a wide selection of quality CAD software solutions to utilize in their CXR screening initiatives.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Andrew James Codlin
Thang Phuoc Dao
Luan Nguyen Quang Vo
Scientific Reports
SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Karolinska Institutet
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine
Hanoi Lung Hospital
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Codlin et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69d7c77bf39344339dd1833a — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-03265-0
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: