ArticleScientific reports2022
Classification of pleural effusions using deep learning visual models: contrastive-loss.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effectiveness of Pleural Cholesterol Levels in Differentiating Transudate from Exudate and Comparison with Light's Criteria.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A deep learning model based on ultrasound imaging to differentiate malignant from benign pleural effusion: a multicenter cohort study.Respiratory research · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Pleural Diseases: Current Applications and Next Steps.Thoracic research and practice · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based Diagnostic model for determining the etiology of pleural effusion using Age, ADA and LDH.Respiratory research · 2025Article
- Harnessing AI for Improved Detection and Classification of Pleural Effusion: Insights and Innovations.Canadian respiratory journal · 2025Review
- Man versus Machine in Pleural Diagnostics: Does Artificial Intelligence Provide the Solution?Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2024Article
- Conditional diagnostic accuracy according to inflammation status and age for diagnosing tuberculous effusion.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Blood and fluid analysis is extensively used for classifying the etiology of pleural effusion. However, most studies focused on determining the presence of a disease. This study classified pleural effusion etiology employing deep learning models by applying contrastive-loss. Patients with pleural effusion who underwent thoracentesis between 2009 and 2019 at the Asan Medical Center were analyzed. Five different models for categorizing the etiology of pleural effusion were compared. The performance metrics were top-1 accuracy, top-2 accuracy, and micro-and weighted-AUROC. UMAP and t-SNE were used to visualize the contrastive-loss model's embedding space. Although the 5 models displayed similar performance in the validation set, the contrastive-loss model showed the highest accuracy in the extra-validation set. Additionally, the accuracy and micro-AUROC of the contrastive-loss model were 81.7% and 0.942 in the validation set, and 66.2% and 0.867 in the extra-validation set. Furthermore, the embedding space visualization in the contrastive-loss model exhibited typical and atypical effusion results by comparing the true and false positives of the rule-based criteria. Therefore, classifying the etiology of pleural effusion was achievable using the contrastive-loss model. Conclusively, visualization of the contrastive-loss model will provide clinicians with valuable insights for etiology diagnosis by differentiating between typical and atypical disease types.
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.