%0 Journal Article
%@ 1438-8871
%I JMIR Publications
%V 27
%N 
%P e69068
%T Diagnostic Performance of Artificial Intelligence–Based Methods for Tuberculosis Detection: Systematic Review
%A Hansun,Seng
%A Argha,Ahmadreza
%A Bakhshayeshi,Ivan
%A Wicaksana,Arya
%A Alinejad-Rokny,Hamid
%A Fox,Greg J
%A Liaw,Siaw-Teng
%A Celler,Branko G
%A Marks,Guy B
%+ School of Clinical Medicine, South West Sydney, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW Sydney, High Street, Kensington, NSW, Sydney, 2052, Australia, 61 456541224, s.hansun@unsw.edu.au
%K AI
%K artificial intelligence
%K deep learning
%K diagnostic performance
%K machine learning
%K PRISMA
%K Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis
%K QUADAS-2
%K Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2
%K systematic literature review
%K tuberculosis detection
%D 2025
%7 7.3.2025
%9 Review
%J J Med Internet Res
%G English
%X Background: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a significant health concern, contributing to the highest mortality among infectious diseases worldwide. However, none of the various TB diagnostic tools introduced is deemed sufficient on its own for the diagnostic pathway, so various artificial intelligence (AI)–based methods have been developed to address this issue. Objective: We aimed to provide a comprehensive evaluation of AI-based algorithms for TB detection across various data modalities. Methods: Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) 2020 guidelines, we conducted a systematic review to synthesize current knowledge on this topic. Our search across 3 major databases (Scopus, PubMed, Association for Computing Machinery [ACM] Digital Library) yielded 1146 records, of which we included 152 (13.3%) studies in our analysis. QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2) was performed for the risk-of-bias assessment of all included studies. Results: Radiographic biomarkers (n=129, 84.9%) and deep learning (DL; n=122, 80.3%) approaches were predominantly used, with convolutional neural networks (CNNs) using Visual Geometry Group (VGG)-16 (n=37, 24.3%), ResNet-50 (n=33, 21.7%), and DenseNet-121 (n=19, 12.5%) architectures being the most common DL approach. The majority of studies focused on model development (n=143, 94.1%) and used a single modality approach (n=141, 92.8%). AI methods demonstrated good performance in all studies: mean accuracy=91.93% (SD 8.10%, 95% CI 90.52%-93.33%; median 93.59%, IQR 88.33%-98.32%), mean area under the curve (AUC)=93.48% (SD 7.51%, 95% CI 91.90%-95.06%; median 95.28%, IQR 91%-99%), mean sensitivity=92.77% (SD 7.48%, 95% CI 91.38%-94.15%; median 94.05% IQR 89%-98.87%), and mean specificity=92.39% (SD 9.4%, 95% CI 90.30%-94.49%; median 95.38%, IQR 89.42%-99.19%). AI performance across different biomarker types showed mean accuracies of 92.45% (SD 7.83%), 89.03% (SD 8.49%), and 84.21% (SD 0%); mean AUCs of 94.47% (SD 7.32%), 88.45% (SD 8.33%), and 88.61% (SD 5.9%); mean sensitivities of 93.8% (SD 6.27%), 88.41% (SD 10.24%), and 93% (SD 0%); and mean specificities of 94.2% (SD 6.63%), 85.89% (SD 14.66%), and 95% (SD 0%) for radiographic, molecular/biochemical, and physiological types, respectively. AI performance across various reference standards showed mean accuracies of 91.44% (SD 7.3%), 93.16% (SD 6.44%), and 88.98% (SD 9.77%); mean AUCs of 90.95% (SD 7.58%), 94.89% (SD 5.18%), and 92.61% (SD 6.01%); mean sensitivities of 91.76% (SD 7.02%), 93.73% (SD 6.67%), and 91.34% (SD 7.71%); and mean specificities of 86.56% (SD 12.8%), 93.69% (SD 8.45%), and 92.7% (SD 6.54%) for bacteriological, human reader, and combined reference standards, respectively. The transfer learning (TL) approach showed increasing popularity (n=89, 58.6%). Notably, only 1 (0.7%) study conducted domain-shift analysis for TB detection. Conclusions: Findings from this review underscore the considerable promise of AI-based methods in the realm of TB detection. Future research endeavors should prioritize conducting domain-shift analyses to better simulate real-world scenarios in TB detection. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023453611; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023453611 
%M 40053773
%R 10.2196/69068
%U https://www.jmir.org/2025/1/e69068
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/69068
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40053773