Skip to main content
. 2020 Dec 11;53(1):53–62. doi: 10.3947/ic.2020.0104

Table 4. Diagnostic performance of humans for differentiating tuberculous from viral meningitis.

TP FP TN FN Sensitivity (% [95% CI]) Specificity (% [95% CI]) Accuracy (% [95% CI]) AUC (95% CI) Artificial neural network with IterativeImputer
P1a P2b
Resident #1 32 20 123 28 53.3 (40.0 - 66.3) 86.0 (79.2 - 91.2) 76.4 (69.9 - 82.0) 0.70 (0.63 - 0.76) <0.001 0.0002
Resident #2 23 7 136 37 38.3 (26.1 - 51.8) 95.1 (90.2 - 96.0) 78.3 (72.0 - 83.8) 0.67 (0.60 - 0.73) <0.001 <0.001
Resident #3 31 20 123 29 51.7 (38.4 - 64.8) 86.0 (79.2 - 91.2) 75.9 (69.4 - 81.6) 0.69 (0.62 - 0.75) <0.001 0.0001
Resident #4 30 9 134 30 50.0 (36.8 - 63.2) 93.7 (88.4 - 97.1) 80.8 (74.7 - 86.0) 0.72 (0.65 - 0.78) <0.001 0.0004
ID specialist #1 39 18 125 21 65.0 (51.6 - 76.9) 87.4 (80.8 - 92.4) 80.8 (74.7 - 86.0) 0.76 (0.70 - 0.82) <0.001 0.03
ID specialist #2 46 26 117 14 76.7 (64.0 - 86.6) 81.8 (74.5 - 87.8) 80.3 (74.2 - 85.6) 0.79 (0.73 - 0.85) <0.001 0.16

aCohen’s kappa statistic was used to test the diagnostic agreement between machine-learning and human judgment.

bComparison of the AUC of the machine-learning with that of human judgment.

True positive means a correct diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis and true negative means a correct diagnosis of viral meningitis.

TP, true positive; FP, false positive; TN, true negative; FN, false negative; AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristics curve; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; ID, infectious disease.