AUTHOR=Yu Qi , Yan Jisong , Tian Shan , Weng Wujin , Luo Hong , Wei Gang , Long Gangyu , Ma Jun , Gong Fengyun , Wang Xiaorong TITLE=A scoring system developed from a nomogram to differentiate active pulmonary tuberculosis from inactive pulmonary tuberculosis JOURNAL=Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology VOLUME=12 YEAR=2022 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cellular-and-infection-microbiology/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2022.947954 DOI=10.3389/fcimb.2022.947954 ISSN=2235-2988 ABSTRACT=Purpose

This study aimed to develop and validate a scoring system based on a nomogram of common clinical metrics to discriminate between active pulmonary tuberculosis (APTB) and inactive pulmonary tuberculosis (IPTB).

Patients and methods

A total of 1096 patients with pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) admitted to Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital between January 2017 and December 2019 were included in this study. Of these patients with PTB, 744 were included in the training cohort (70%; 458 patients with APTB, and 286 patients with IPTB), and 352 were included in the validation cohort (30%; 220 patients with APTB, and 132 patients with IPTB). Data from 744 patients from the training cohort were used to establish the diagnostic model. Routine blood examination indices and biochemical indicators were collected to construct a diagnostic model using the nomogram, which was then transformed into a scoring system. Furthermore, data from 352 patients from the validation cohort were used to validate the scoring system.

Results

Six variables were selected to construct the prediction model. In the scoring system, the mean corpuscular volume, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, albumin level, adenosine deaminase level, monocyte-to-high-density lipoprotein ratio, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein-to-lymphocyte ratio were 6, 4, 7, 5, 5, and 10, respectively. When the cut-off value was 15.5, the scoring system for recognizing APTB and IPTB exhibited excellent diagnostic performance. The area under the curve, specificity, and sensitivity of the training cohort were 0.919, 84.06%, and 86.36%, respectively, whereas those of the validation cohort were 0.900, 82.73, and 86.36%, respectively.

Conclusion

This study successfully constructed a scoring system for distinguishing APTB from IPTB that performed well.