↓ Skip to main content

A deep learning model using chest X-ray for identifying TB and NTM-LD patients: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in Insights into Imaging, April 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
A deep learning model using chest X-ray for identifying TB and NTM-LD patients: a cross-sectional study
Published in
Insights into Imaging, April 2023
DOI 10.1186/s13244-023-01395-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chia-Jung Liu, Cheng Che Tsai, Lu-Cheng Kuo, Po-Chih Kuo, Meng-Rui Lee, Jann-Yuan Wang, Jen-Chung Ko, Jin-Yuan Shih, Hao-Chien Wang, Chong-Jen Yu

Abstract

Timely differentiating between pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease (NTM-LD), which are radiographically similar, is important because infectiousness and treatment differ. This study aimed to evaluate whether artificial intelligence could distinguish between TB or NTM-LD patients by chest X-rays (CXRs) from suspects of mycobacterial lung disease. A total of 1500 CXRs, including 500 each from patients with pulmonary TB, NTM-LD, and patients with clinical suspicion but negative mycobacterial culture (Imitator) from two hospitals, were retrospectively collected and evaluated in this study. We developed a deep neural network (DNN) and evaluated model performance using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) in both internal and external test sets. Furthermore, we conducted a reader study and tested our model under three scenarios of different mycobacteria prevalence. Among the internal and external test sets, the AUCs of our DNN model were 0.83 ± 0.005 and 0.76 ± 0.006 for pulmonary TB, 0.86 ± 0.006 and 0.64 ± 0.017 for NTM-LD, and 0.77 ± 0.007 and 0.74 ± 0.005 for Imitator. The DNN model showed higher performance on the internal test set in classification accuracy (66.5 ± 2.5%) than senior (50.8 ± 3.0%, p < 0.001) and junior pulmonologists (47.5 ± 2.8%, p < 0.001). Among different prevalence scenarios, the DNN model has stable performance in terms of AUC to detect TB and mycobacterial lung disease. DNN model had satisfactory performance and a higher accuracy than pulmonologists on classifying patients with presumptive mycobacterial lung diseases. DNN model could be a complementary first-line screening tool.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 17%
Lecturer 3 17%
Researcher 2 11%
Unspecified 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 4 22%
Unknown 8 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 April 2023.
All research outputs
#16,994,909
of 25,753,031 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#771
of 1,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,223
of 419,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#29
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,753,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,255 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.