ArticlePloS one2022
Explainable emphysema detection on chest radiographs with deep learning.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Implementation of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Chest X-ray Interpretation: It Is About Time.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We propose a deep learning system to automatically detect four explainable emphysema signs on frontal and lateral chest radiographs. Frontal and lateral chest radiographs from 3000 studies were retrospectively collected. Two radiologists annotated these with 4 radiological signs of pulmonary emphysema identified from the literature. A patient with ≥2 of these signs present is considered emphysema positive. Using separate deep learning systems for frontal and lateral images we predict the presence of each of the four visual signs and use these to determine emphysema positivity. The ROC and AUC results on a set of 422 held-out cases, labeled by both radiologists, are reported. Comparison with a black-box model which predicts emphysema without the use of explainable visual features is made on the annotations from both radiologists, as well as the subset that they agreed on. DeLong's test is used to compare with the black-box model ROC and McNemar's test to compare with radiologist performance. In 422 test cases, emphysema positivity was predicted with AUCs of 0.924 and 0.946 using the reference standard from each radiologist separately. Setting model sensitivity equivalent to that of the second radiologist, our model has a comparable specificity (p = 0.880 and p = 0.143 for each radiologist respectively). Our method is comparable with the black-box model with AUCs of 0.915 (p = 0.407) and 0.935 (p = 0.291), respectively. On the 370 cases where both radiologists agreed (53 positives), our model achieves an AUC of 0.981, again comparable to the black-box model AUC of 0.972 (p = 0.289). Our proposed method can predict emphysema positivity on chest radiographs as well as a radiologist or a comparable black-box method. It additionally produces labels for four visual signs to ensure the explainability of the result. The dataset is publicly available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6373392.
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.