ReviewHealth science reports2025
Accuracy of Machine Learning in Identifying Drug Resistance in Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning prediction of tuberculosis mortality: a comparative analysis of random survival forest and cox regression models.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Interpretable multimodal machine learning for diagnosis of drug-resistant tuberculosis.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Machine Learning in Identifying Drug Resistance in Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Health science reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Machine learning (ML) has shown promise in diagnosing tuberculosis (TB), but systematic evidence on its role in predicting and diagnosing drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) is lacking. This study integrates a systematic review and meta-analysis to consolidate ML's performance in DR-TB diagnosis and prediction to promote artificial intelligence in this field. Methods: Relevant studies were retrieved from PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science up to August 20, 2025, complemented by a manual search of Google Scholar. Risk of bias was evaluated with PROBAST. A bivariate mixed-effects model pooled accuracy measures, with subgroup analyses stratified by ML tasks (diagnosis and prediction). Results: Twenty-six studies, including 35,472 participants, were analysed. Diagnostic models outperformed prediction models, with a higher pooled AUC (0.94 vs. 0.87). Deep learning (DL)-based diagnostic models consistently surpassed traditional ML across all key metrics, AUC (0.97 vs. 0.89). In the diagnostic model, internal validation showed superior performance to external validation AUC (0.95 vs. 0.85), and in the predictive model, the overall performance of the model in internal validation is slightly better than that in external validation AUC (0.88 vs. 0.85). Conclusion: ML models, particularly DL, demonstrate high diagnostic efficacy for DR-TB, though performance declines in external data sets. Predictive models show moderate accuracy but remain useful for early risk stratification. Large multi-center validations are needed to ensure robustness and clinical applicability.
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.