ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2025
Accelerating Cough-Based Algorithms for Pulmonary Tuberculosis Screening: Results From the CODA TB DREAM Challenge.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI Based Cough Analysis for Pulmonary Tuberculosis Triage and Diagnosis: A Technical Review.npj biomedical innovations · 2026Review
- External validation of cough-based algorithms for pulmonary tuberculosis screening from the CODA TB DREAM challenge using cough data from Peru.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Tuberculosis Screening and Detection: From Evidence to Policy and Implementation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Tuberculosis Screening from Cough Audio: Baseline Models, Clinical Variables, and Uncertainty Quantification.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Year in Review on Tuberculosis and Non-tuberculous Mycobacteria Disease: A 2026 Update for Clinicians and Scientists.Pathogens & immunity · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
33 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Open-access data challenges can accelerate innovation in artificial intelligence-based tools. In the Cough Diagnostic Algorithm for Tuberculosis (CODA TB) DREAM Challenge, we developed and independently validated cough sound-based artificial intelligence algorithms for tuberculosis screening. Methods: We included data from 2143 adults with ≥2 weeks of cough from outpatient clinics in India, Madagascar, the Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Vietnam. A standard tuberculosis evaluation was completed, and ≥3 solicited coughs were recorded using a smartphone. We invited teams to develop models using training data to classify microbiologically confirmed tuberculosis disease using (1) cough sound features only and/or (2) cough sound features with routinely available clinical data. After 4 months, they submitted the algorithms for independent test set validation. Models were ranked by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and partial AUROC (pAUROC) to achieve at least 80% sensitivity and 60% specificity. Results: Eleven cough models and 6 cough-plus-clinical models were submitted. AUROCs for cough models ranged from 0.69 to 0.74, and the highest performing model achieved 55.5% specificity (95% confidence interval, 47.7%-64.2%) at 80% sensitivity. The addition of clinical data improved AUROCs (range, 0.78-0.83); 5 of the 6 models reached the target pAUROC, and the highest performing model had 73.8% specificity (95% confidence interval, 60.8%-80.0%) at 80% sensitivity. The AUROC varied by country and was higher among male and human immunodeficiency virus-negative individuals. Conclusions: In a short period, an open-access data challenge facilitated the development of new cough-based tuberculosis algorithms and demonstrated potential as a tuberculosis screening tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.