ReviewHealth and technology2021
Current limitations to identify covid-19 using artificial intelligence with chest x-ray imaging (part ii). The shortcut learning problem.
Review in Health and technology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving deep neural network generalization and robustness to background bias via layer-wise relevance propagation optimization.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Implementation of artificial intelligence in thoracic imaging-a what, how, and why guide from the European Society of Thoracic Imaging (ESTI).European radiology · 2023Review
- Machine learning with multimodal data for COVID-19.Heliyon · 2023Review
- Development and Validation of a Multimodal-Based Prognosis and Intervention Prediction Model for COVID-19 Patients in a Multicenter Cohort.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- New patch-based strategy for COVID-19 automatic identification using chest x-ray images.Health and technology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, computer vision researchers have been working on automatic identification of this disease using radiological images. The results achieved by automatic classification methods far exceed those of human specialists, with sensitivity as high as 100% being reported. However, prestigious radiology societies have stated that the use of this type of imaging alone is not recommended as a diagnostic method. According to some experts the patterns presented in these images are unspecific and subtle, overlapping with other viral pneumonias. This report seeks to evaluate the analysis the robustness and generalizability of different approaches using artificial intelligence, deep learning and computer vision to identify COVID-19 using chest X-rays images. We also seek to alert researchers and reviewers to the issue of "shortcut learning". Recommendations are presented to identify whether COVID-19 automatic classification models are being affected by shortcut learning. Firstly, papers using explainable artificial intelligence methods are reviewed. The results of applying external validation sets are evaluated to determine the generalizability of these methods. Finally, studies that apply traditional computer vision methods to perform the same task are considered. It is evident that using the whole chest X-Ray image or the bounding box of the lungs, the image regions that contribute most to the classification appear outside of the lung region, something that is not likely possible. In addition, although the investigations that evaluated their models on data sets external to the training set, the effectiveness of these models decreased significantly, it may provide a more realistic representation as how the model will perform in the clinic. The results indicate that, so far, the existing models often involve shortcut learning, which makes their use less appropriate in the clinical setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.