DOI: 10.4103/aam.aam_535_26 ISSN: 1596-3519

Machine Learning Models for Predicting Tuberculosis Treatment Adherence, Nonadherence, and Loss to Follow-up in Low- and Middle-income Countries: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020-compliant Systematic Review an

Subodh Kumar, Sumit Kumar Mahato, Hansraj Kumar, Harminder Singh

Abstract

Background:

Suboptimal adherence to tuberculosis (TB) treatment continues to undermine global TB control efforts, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. In recent years, machine learning (ML) approaches have been explored as tools to predict adherence-related outcomes and guide targeted interventions.

Objective:

The objective of this study was to systematically review and synthesize the predictive performance of ML models for TB treatment adherence, nonadherence, and loss to follow-up.

Methods:

We conducted a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines. Multiple databases were searched from inception to March 2026. Studies that used ML models to predict TB adherence-related outcomes and reported the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were included. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis of logit-transformed AUC values, along with assessments of heterogeneity, publication bias, sensitivity analysis, and risk of bias using the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.

Results:

Seven studies met inclusion criteria. The reported AUC values ranged from 0.72 to 0.95. The pooled AUC was 0.84 (95% confidence interval: 0.76–0.90), indicating good predictive performance. Substantial heterogeneity was observed ( I 2 = 99.9%, P < 0.001). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated stability of results. Egger’s test showed no evidence of publication bias ( P = 0.915). Most studies were judged to be at high risk of bias, particularly in the analysis domain.

Conclusion:

ML models demonstrate promising ability to predict TB treatment adherence-related outcomes. However, variability in study methods and a high risk of bias underscore the need for standardized approaches and rigorous external validation.

More from our Archive