Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) Software Versus Radiologists from Multiple Countries: A Comparison of Tuberculosis Detection from Chest X-Rays

Abstract Nearly a third of TB cases go undetected annually. WHO recommends computer-aided detection (CAD) to enhance TB screening, with studies showing comparable performance to local radiologists. Using 774 chest X-rays from the South African National TB Prevalence Survey, we compared 12 CAD software with 11 radiologists from Nigeria, India, the UK, and the US, against a composite microbiological reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity and Cohen’s kappa were calculated and compared. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were developed for CAD and Euclidean distance assessed radiologists’ alignment with the best-performing software. Binomial regression tested the impact of radiologists’ characteristics on accuracy. Radiologist performance varied. On the restricted read, British radiologists had the highest sensitivity (78.7% [73.2–83.5%]) and Indian radiologists the lowest (67.1% [61.0-72.8%]). Specificity ranged from 75.8% (71.8–79.4%, Nigeria) to 84.3% (80.9–87.3%, the US). The top CAD outperformed all except Indian radiologists when matching specificity. CAD with Conformité Européenne (CE) generally matched or surpassed radiologists. British radiologists’ sensitivity was closest to the top CAD, while American radiologists were closest in specificity and overall. Experience, TB reads, and country had no significant impact on accuracy. CAD performed well against radiologists globally, underscoring its potential to enhance access to care.