ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Artificial intelligence on chest X-ray for tuberculosis screening in Tanzania: a multicentre evaluation.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tanzania has adopted artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted chest X-ray screening for tuberculosis (TB), including the use of CAD4TB version 6, which is registered by the Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA). While GeneXpert, practical reference standard used in routine practice, remains the primary bacteriological confirmatory test in routine practice, there is currently no established national threshold for CAD4TB use in either active case finding (ACF) or passive case finding (PCF) settings. This study evaluates the implementation and operational use of CAD4TB version 6 within mobile TB screening units in Tanzania and highlights challenges affecting its effective use. We conducted a retrospective analysis of screening data from 11,923 individuals collected from mobile clinics equipped with digital X-ray, CAD4TB version 6, and GeneXpert systems. Comparisons were made between manual chest X-ray interpretation, CAD4TB scores, and GeneXpert results within the subset of individuals who underwent confirmatory testing. The findings reveal substantial inconsistencies in screening workflows, including non-uniform use of CAD4TB prior to GeneXpert testing, missing radiological records, and deviations from intended protocols across sites. Descriptive analysis showed that CAD4TB scores generally aligned with GeneXpert-positive cases within the tested subset; however, due to selective application of GeneXpert and incomplete data, these observations cannot be interpreted as measures of diagnostic accuracy. This study should be interpreted as an implementation and operational assessment of AI-assisted TB screening rather than a diagnostic accuracy or threshold-setting study. The findings highlight important gaps in protocol adherence, data completeness, and workflow standardization, underscoring the need for prospective, protocol-driven studies to establish validated national thresholds for CAD4TB use in Tanzania.
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.