ArticleComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2022
Account of Deep Learning-Based Ultrasonic Image Feature in the Diagnosis of Severe Sepsis Complicated with Acute Kidney Injury.
Article in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Survey of Transfer Learning Approaches in the Machine Learning of Digital Health Sensing Data.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Liver Injury in Favipiravir-Treated COVID-19 Patients: Retrospective Single-Center Cohort Study.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Article
- Bibliometric and visual analysis of machine learning-based research in acute kidney injury worldwide.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Retracted: Account of Deep Learning-Based Ultrasonic Image Feature in the Diagnosis of Severe Sepsis Complicated with Acute Kidney Injury.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2023Article
- Chinese experts' consensus on the application of intensive care big data.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-11-01Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Paper Mill · Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was aimed at analyzing the diagnostic value of convolutional neural network models on account of deep learning for severe sepsis complicated with acute kidney injury and providing an effective theoretical reference for the clinical use of ultrasonic image diagnoses. 50 patients with severe sepsis complicated with acute kidney injury and 50 healthy volunteers were selected in this study. They all underwent ultrasound scans. Different deep learning convolutional neural network models dense convolutional network (DenseNet121), Google inception net (GoogLeNet), and Microsoft's residual network (ResNet) were used for training and diagnoses. Then, the diagnostic results were compared with professional image physicians' artificial diagnoses. The results showed that accuracy and sensitivity of the three deep learning algorithms were significantly higher than professional image physicians' artificial diagnoses. Besides, the error rates of the three algorithm models for severe sepsis complicated with acute kidney injury were significantly lower than professional physicians' artificial diagnoses. The areas under curves (AUCs) of the three algorithms were significantly higher than AUCs of doctors' diagnosis results. The loss function parameters of DenseNet121 and GoogLeNet were significantly lower than that of ResNet, with the statistically significant difference (
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.