南非肺结核患病率调查中从胸片中进行计算机辅助肺结核检测:外部验证和商用人工智能软件的模拟影响。

IF 23.8 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL INFORMATICS Lancet Digital Health Pub Date : 2024-07-19 DOI:10.1016/S2589-7500(24)00118-3
{"title":"南非肺结核患病率调查中从胸片中进行计算机辅助肺结核检测:外部验证和商用人工智能软件的模拟影响。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/S2589-7500(24)00118-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Computer-aided detection (CAD) can help identify people with active tuberculosis left undetected. However, few studies have compared the performance of commercially available CAD products for screening in high tuberculosis and high HIV settings, and there is poor understanding of threshold selection across products in different populations. We aimed to compare CAD products' performance, with further analyses on subgroup performance and threshold selection.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We evaluated 12 CAD products on a case–control sample of participants from a South African tuberculosis prevalence survey. Only those with microbiological test results were eligible. The primary outcome was comparing products' accuracy using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) against microbiological evidence. Threshold analyses were performed based on pre-defined criteria and across all thresholds. We conducted subgroup analyses including age, gender, HIV status, previous tuberculosis history, symptoms presence, and current smoking status.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Of the 774 people included, 516 were bacteriologically negative and 258 were bacteriologically positive. Diverse accuracy was noted: Lunit and Nexus had AUCs near 0·9, followed by qXR, JF CXR-2, InferRead, Xvision, and ChestEye (AUCs 0·8–0·9). XrayAME, RADIFY, and TiSepX-TB had AUC under 0·8. Thresholds varied notably across these products and different versions of the same products. Certain products (Lunit, Nexus, JF CXR-2, and qXR) maintained high sensitivity (&gt;90%) across a wide threshold range while reducing the number of individuals requiring confirmatory diagnostic testing. All products generally performed worst in older individuals, people with previous tuberculosis, and people with HIV. Variations in thresholds, sensitivity, and specificity existed across groups and settings.</p></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><p>Several previously unevaluated products performed similarly to those evaluated by WHO. Thresholds differed across products and demographic subgroups. The rapid emergence of products and versions necessitates a global strategy to validate new versions and software to support CAD product and threshold selections.</p></div><div><h3>Funding</h3><p>Government of Canada.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48534,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Digital Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":23.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589750024001183/pdfft?md5=775b5ed834f92e1ac27b79991982d09e&pid=1-s2.0-S2589750024001183-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Computer-aided detection of tuberculosis from chest radiographs in a tuberculosis prevalence survey in South Africa: external validation and modelled impacts of commercially available artificial intelligence software\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S2589-7500(24)00118-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Computer-aided detection (CAD) can help identify people with active tuberculosis left undetected. However, few studies have compared the performance of commercially available CAD products for screening in high tuberculosis and high HIV settings, and there is poor understanding of threshold selection across products in different populations. We aimed to compare CAD products' performance, with further analyses on subgroup performance and threshold selection.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We evaluated 12 CAD products on a case–control sample of participants from a South African tuberculosis prevalence survey. Only those with microbiological test results were eligible. The primary outcome was comparing products' accuracy using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) against microbiological evidence. Threshold analyses were performed based on pre-defined criteria and across all thresholds. We conducted subgroup analyses including age, gender, HIV status, previous tuberculosis history, symptoms presence, and current smoking status.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Of the 774 people included, 516 were bacteriologically negative and 258 were bacteriologically positive. Diverse accuracy was noted: Lunit and Nexus had AUCs near 0·9, followed by qXR, JF CXR-2, InferRead, Xvision, and ChestEye (AUCs 0·8–0·9). XrayAME, RADIFY, and TiSepX-TB had AUC under 0·8. Thresholds varied notably across these products and different versions of the same products. Certain products (Lunit, Nexus, JF CXR-2, and qXR) maintained high sensitivity (&gt;90%) across a wide threshold range while reducing the number of individuals requiring confirmatory diagnostic testing. All products generally performed worst in older individuals, people with previous tuberculosis, and people with HIV. Variations in thresholds, sensitivity, and specificity existed across groups and settings.</p></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><p>Several previously unevaluated products performed similarly to those evaluated by WHO. Thresholds differed across products and demographic subgroups. The rapid emergence of products and versions necessitates a global strategy to validate new versions and software to support CAD product and threshold selections.</p></div><div><h3>Funding</h3><p>Government of Canada.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48534,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lancet Digital Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":23.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589750024001183/pdfft?md5=775b5ed834f92e1ac27b79991982d09e&pid=1-s2.0-S2589750024001183-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lancet Digital Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589750024001183\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL INFORMATICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Digital Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589750024001183","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:计算机辅助检测(CAD)有助于发现未被发现的活动性肺结核患者。然而,很少有研究对市售计算机辅助检测产品在结核病高发区和艾滋病高发区的筛查性能进行比较,而且对不同产品在不同人群中的阈值选择也缺乏了解。我们旨在比较 CAD 产品的性能,并进一步分析亚组性能和阈值选择:我们对南非结核病发病率调查的病例对照样本中的 12 种 CAD 产品进行了评估。只有微生物检测结果符合条件。主要结果是用接收器工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)与微生物学证据比较产品的准确性。阈值分析根据预先确定的标准和所有阈值进行。我们进行了亚组分析,包括年龄、性别、HIV 感染状况、既往结核病史、症状存在情况和当前吸烟状况:在纳入的 774 人中,516 人为细菌学阴性,258 人为细菌学阳性。准确性存在差异:Lunit 和 Nexus 的 AUC 接近 0-9,其次是 qXR、JF CXR-2、InferRead、Xvision 和 ChestEye(AUC 为 0-8-0-9)。XrayAME、RADIFY 和 TiSepX-TB 的 AUC 低于 0-8。这些产品以及同一产品的不同版本的阈值差异显著。某些产品(Lunit、Nexus、JF CXR-2 和 qXR)在较宽的阈值范围内保持了较高的灵敏度(>90%),同时减少了需要进行确诊检测的人数。所有产品在老年人、曾患结核病者和艾滋病毒感染者中的表现一般都最差。阈值、灵敏度和特异性在不同群体和环境中存在差异:几种以前未评估过的产品与世卫组织评估过的产品表现相似。不同产品和人口亚群的阈值不同。由于产品和版本的迅速出现,有必要制定一项全球战略来验证新版本和软件,以支持计算机辅助诊断产品和阈值的选择:加拿大政府。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Computer-aided detection of tuberculosis from chest radiographs in a tuberculosis prevalence survey in South Africa: external validation and modelled impacts of commercially available artificial intelligence software

Background

Computer-aided detection (CAD) can help identify people with active tuberculosis left undetected. However, few studies have compared the performance of commercially available CAD products for screening in high tuberculosis and high HIV settings, and there is poor understanding of threshold selection across products in different populations. We aimed to compare CAD products' performance, with further analyses on subgroup performance and threshold selection.

Methods

We evaluated 12 CAD products on a case–control sample of participants from a South African tuberculosis prevalence survey. Only those with microbiological test results were eligible. The primary outcome was comparing products' accuracy using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) against microbiological evidence. Threshold analyses were performed based on pre-defined criteria and across all thresholds. We conducted subgroup analyses including age, gender, HIV status, previous tuberculosis history, symptoms presence, and current smoking status.

Findings

Of the 774 people included, 516 were bacteriologically negative and 258 were bacteriologically positive. Diverse accuracy was noted: Lunit and Nexus had AUCs near 0·9, followed by qXR, JF CXR-2, InferRead, Xvision, and ChestEye (AUCs 0·8–0·9). XrayAME, RADIFY, and TiSepX-TB had AUC under 0·8. Thresholds varied notably across these products and different versions of the same products. Certain products (Lunit, Nexus, JF CXR-2, and qXR) maintained high sensitivity (>90%) across a wide threshold range while reducing the number of individuals requiring confirmatory diagnostic testing. All products generally performed worst in older individuals, people with previous tuberculosis, and people with HIV. Variations in thresholds, sensitivity, and specificity existed across groups and settings.

Interpretation

Several previously unevaluated products performed similarly to those evaluated by WHO. Thresholds differed across products and demographic subgroups. The rapid emergence of products and versions necessitates a global strategy to validate new versions and software to support CAD product and threshold selections.

Funding

Government of Canada.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
41.20
自引率
1.60%
发文量
232
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The Lancet Digital Health publishes important, innovative, and practice-changing research on any topic connected with digital technology in clinical medicine, public health, and global health. The journal’s open access content crosses subject boundaries, building bridges between health professionals and researchers.By bringing together the most important advances in this multidisciplinary field,The Lancet Digital Health is the most prominent publishing venue in digital health. We publish a range of content types including Articles,Review, Comment, and Correspondence, contributing to promoting digital technologies in health practice worldwide.
期刊最新文献
Artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiogram for mortality and cardiovascular risk estimation: a model development and validation study COVID-19 testing and reporting behaviours in England across different sociodemographic groups: a population-based study using testing data and data from community prevalence surveillance surveys Fairly evaluating the performance of normative models – Authors' reply Fairly evaluating the performance of normative models Lifting the veil on health datasets
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1