Scholarlink

Background <p>Computer-aided detection (CAD) software provides scalable, standardized chest X-ray (CXR) interpretation, helping address the global shortage of radiologists and inter-reader variability. Printed X-ray films remain common in many low-resource settings, yet most CAD software can only process Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files. Genki software (DeepTek, India) is one of the few World Health Organization (WHO)–recommended CAD software capable of interpreting both DICOM files and photographs of printed X-ray films (Joint Photographic Experts Group [JPEG] files), but its performance using JPEG files has not been independently evaluated.</p> Methods <p>We evaluated Genki software using a test library of 1466 CXR images from adults screened for tuberculosis (TB) in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam. Each participant’s TB status was determined using a composite reference standard, based on radiological findings and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra testing. Each CXR image was blindly re-read by 10 human readers and processed by Genki software using both DICOM and JPEG files. Genki software performance was evaluated using median abnormality scores, area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), and sensitivity/specificity comparisons at different abnormality score thresholds.</p> Results <p>Genki software abnormality scores were significantly higher when using JPEG files, but this did not translate into significant differences in AUCs between the file types (DICOM AUC = 0.94 vs JPEG AUC = 0.92, <i>p</i> = 0.190). When abnormality score thresholds were calibrated to match average human reader sensitivity (79.0%), Genki achieved significantly higher specificity with both DICOM (95.2% vs 84.8%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and JPEG (92.1% vs 84.8%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) files. When the software’s abnormality score thresholds were calibrated to achieve 90% sensitivity, Genki maintained high specificity with both DICOM (89.3%) and JPEG (81.1%) file types, meeting the minimum Target Product Profile (TPP) criteria for a high-sensitivity, high-specificity screening test.</p> Conclusions <p>Genki software performs comparably when interpreting DICOM and JPEG files, outperforming human readers and meeting TPP criteria with both file types. This capability enhances its usability in resource-limited settings where digital infrastructure is lacking, supporting its broader deployment for TB screening. Further research is needed to assess real-world implementation feasibility and performance in diverse populations and clinical environments.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Bridging the analog divide: a comparison of printed X-ray films and digital images when using computer-aided detection software for tuberculosis screening

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月13日

查看全文
  • Andrew J. Codlin,
  • Thang P. Dao,
  • Binh H. Nguyen,
  • Luan N. Q. Vo,
  • Rachel J. Forse,
  • Ha T. M. Dang,
  • Lan H. Nguyen,
  • Hoa B. Nguyen,
  • Luong V. Dinh,
  • Kristi Sidney Annerstedt,
  • Johan Lundin,
  • Knut Lönnroth

摘要

Background

Computer-aided detection (CAD) software provides scalable, standardized chest X-ray (CXR) interpretation, helping address the global shortage of radiologists and inter-reader variability. Printed X-ray films remain common in many low-resource settings, yet most CAD software can only process Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files. Genki software (DeepTek, India) is one of the few World Health Organization (WHO)–recommended CAD software capable of interpreting both DICOM files and photographs of printed X-ray films (Joint Photographic Experts Group [JPEG] files), but its performance using JPEG files has not been independently evaluated.

Methods

We evaluated Genki software using a test library of 1466 CXR images from adults screened for tuberculosis (TB) in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam. Each participant’s TB status was determined using a composite reference standard, based on radiological findings and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra testing. Each CXR image was blindly re-read by 10 human readers and processed by Genki software using both DICOM and JPEG files. Genki software performance was evaluated using median abnormality scores, area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), and sensitivity/specificity comparisons at different abnormality score thresholds.

Results

Genki software abnormality scores were significantly higher when using JPEG files, but this did not translate into significant differences in AUCs between the file types (DICOM AUC = 0.94 vs JPEG AUC = 0.92, p = 0.190). When abnormality score thresholds were calibrated to match average human reader sensitivity (79.0%), Genki achieved significantly higher specificity with both DICOM (95.2% vs 84.8%, p < 0.001) and JPEG (92.1% vs 84.8%, p < 0.001) files. When the software’s abnormality score thresholds were calibrated to achieve 90% sensitivity, Genki maintained high specificity with both DICOM (89.3%) and JPEG (81.1%) file types, meeting the minimum Target Product Profile (TPP) criteria for a high-sensitivity, high-specificity screening test.

Conclusions

Genki software performs comparably when interpreting DICOM and JPEG files, outperforming human readers and meeting TPP criteria with both file types. This capability enhances its usability in resource-limited settings where digital infrastructure is lacking, supporting its broader deployment for TB screening. Further research is needed to assess real-world implementation feasibility and performance in diverse populations and clinical environments.