Performance of Human and Computer-aided Evaluation of Digital Chest Radiography for Community-based Screening of Asymptomatic Tuberculosis

Background: The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends digital chest radiography (dCXR) with computer-aided detection (CAD) for tuberculosis (TB) screening of individuals >15 years of age. Methodology: Adults (≥18 years) were enrolled (March 2021-December 2022) in South Africa into a community-based Screening Cohort (household contacts) and a facility-based Triage Cohort (symptomatic clinic attendees). Microbiologically-confirmed pulmonary TB required positive sputum culture and/or Xpert Ultra. Asymptomatic TB was diagnosed in participants without TB symptoms. dCXR were read by blinded human readers and qXR CAD (0.5 threshold; Qure.AI, India). Results: dCXR from 1,353 participants (886 Screening Cohort; 467 Triage Cohort) were analysed. Microbiologically-confirmed TB occurred in 48 (5.4%) Screening Cohort [9 symptomatic (19%) and 39 asymptomatic (81%)]; and 116 (24.8%) Triage Cohort (all symptomatic) participants. dCXR sensitivity (human readers) for asymptomatic TB in the Screening Cohort was 56.4%, vs. 72.4% for symptomatic TB in the Triage Cohort (difference -16%; 95%CI -2.9 to -29.1); with specificities 94.1% and 81.2%, respectively. Corresponding qXR CAD sensitivities were 69.2% vs. 83.6% (difference -14.4%; 95%CI -26 to -2.8), with specificities 89.3% and 73.5%, respectively. The difference in dCXR sensitivity and specificity for asymptomatic TB between qXR CAD and human readers was 12.8% (95%CI -0.48 to 26.1) and -4.8% (95%CI -12.4 to 28.2), respectively. Conclusion: Sensitivity of community-based dCXR screening for microbiologically-confirmed asymptomatic TB among household contacts was lower than for facility-based triage of symptomatic TB, but approached 70% with CAD. Neither human reader nor qXR CAD evaluation met WHO targets for a TB screening test (90% sensitivity; 80% specificity). Research in context: transmission and hinder elimination efforts.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
medRxiv
Published
2026-04-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.04.29.26351560
Primary Topic
COVID-19 diagnosis using AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Performance of Human and Computer-aided Evaluation of Digital Chest Radiography for Community-based Screening of Asymptomatic Tuberculosis

A Leslie, Stephanus T. Malherbe, Fernanda Maruri, Humphrey Mulenga et al.
medRxiv
COVID-19 diagnosis using AI
article

Performance of Human and Computer-aided Evaluation of Digital Chest Radiography for Community-based Screening of Asymptomatic Tuberculosis

A Leslie, Stephanus T. Malherbe, Fernanda Maruri, Humphrey Mulenga, Firdows Noor, Kate Hadley, Tahlia Perumal, Ravindre Panchia, Nicolette Tredoux, Thomas Scriba, Angelique K. Luabeya, Justin Shenje, Keertan Dheda, Timothy R Sterling, Tumelo Moloantoa, Sarah Nyangu, Gerhard Walzl, Mark Hatherill, Neil Martinson, Khuthadzo Hlongwane, Simon C Mendelsohn, Michele Tameris, Bernard Fourie, Yuri F van der Heijden, Kim Stanley
article en

Abstract

Background: The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends digital chest radiography (dCXR) with computer-aided detection (CAD) for tuberculosis (TB) screening of individuals >15 years of age. Methodology: Adults (≥18 years) were enrolled (March 2021-December 2022) in South Africa into a community-based Screening Cohort (household contacts) and a facility-based Triage Cohort (symptomatic clinic attendees). Microbiologically-confirmed pulmonary TB required positive sputum culture and/or Xpert Ultra. Asymptomatic TB was diagnosed in participants without TB symptoms. dCXR were read by blinded human readers and qXR CAD (0.5 threshold; Qure.AI, India). Results: dCXR from 1,353 participants (886 Screening Cohort; 467 Triage Cohort) were analysed. Microbiologically-confirmed TB occurred in 48 (5.4%) Screening Cohort [9 symptomatic (19%) and 39 asymptomatic (81%)]; and 116 (24.8%) Triage Cohort (all symptomatic) participants. dCXR sensitivity (human readers) for asymptomatic TB in the Screening Cohort was 56.4%, vs. 72.4% for symptomatic TB in the Triage Cohort (difference -16%; 95%CI -2.9 to -29.1); with specificities 94.1% and 81.2%, respectively. Corresponding qXR CAD sensitivities were 69.2% vs. 83.6% (difference -14.4%; 95%CI -26 to -2.8), with specificities 89.3% and 73.5%, respectively. The difference in dCXR sensitivity and specificity for asymptomatic TB between qXR CAD and human readers was 12.8% (95%CI -0.48 to 26.1) and -4.8% (95%CI -12.4 to 28.2), respectively. Conclusion: Sensitivity of community-based dCXR screening for microbiologically-confirmed asymptomatic TB among household contacts was lower than for facility-based triage of symptomatic TB, but approached 70% with CAD. Neither human reader nor qXR CAD evaluation met WHO targets for a TB screening test (90% sensitivity; 80% specificity). Research in context: transmission and hinder elimination efforts.

medRxiv
South African Medical Research Council (ZA), University of Cape Town (ZA), University of the Witwatersrand (ZA), Stellenbosch University (ZA), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB), South African Tuberculosis Vaccine Initiative (ZA), Aurum Institute (ZA), Africa Health Research Institute (ZA), Perinatal HIV Research Unit (ZA), University of Pretoria (ZA), Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
COVID-19 diagnosis using AI
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.