ArticleScientific reports2023
Efficient automated error detection in medical data using deep-learning and label-clustering.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Evaluating cognitive biases in AI-assisted mammography interpretation: a simulation reader study of explainable AI across radiologist experience levels.European radiology · 2026Article
- An Unsupervised Error Detection Methodology for Detecting Mislabels in Healthcare Analytics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical datasets inherently contain errors from subjective or inaccurate test results, or from confounding biological complexities. It is difficult for medical experts to detect these elusive errors manually, due to lack of contextual information, limiting data privacy regulations, and the sheer scale of data to be reviewed. Current methods for training robust artificial intelligence (AI) models on data containing mislabeled examples generally fall into one of several categories-attempting to improve the robustness of the model architecture, the regularization techniques used, the loss function used during training, or selecting a subset of data that contains cleaner labels. This last category requires the ability to efficiently detect errors either prior to or during training, either relabeling them or removing them completely. More recent progress in error detection has focused on using multi-network learning to minimize deleterious effects of errors on training, however, using many neural networks to reach a consensus on which data should be removed can be computationally intensive and inefficient. In this work, a deep-learning based algorithm was used in conjunction with a label-clustering approach to automate error detection. For dataset with synthetic label flips added, these errors were identified with an accuracy of up to 85%, while requiring up to 93% less computing resources to complete compared to a previous model consensus approach developed previously. The resulting trained AI models exhibited greater training stability and up to a 45% improvement in accuracy, from 69 to over 99% compared to the consensus approach, at least 10% improvement on using noise-robust loss functions in a binary classification problem, and a 51% improvement for multi-class classification. These results indicate that practical, automated a priori detection of errors in medical data is possible, without human oversight.
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.