ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2023
Assessment of a deep learning model for COVID-19 classification on chest radiographs: a comparison across image acquisition techniques and clinical factors.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep Learning Network Selection and Optimized Information Fusion for Enhanced COVID-19 Detection: A Literature Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Impact of retraining and data partitions on the generalizability of a deep learning model in the task of COVID-19 classification on chest radiographs.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024Article
- Assessment of a deep learning model for COVID-19 classification on chest radiographs: a comparison across image acquisition techniques and clinical factors.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 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.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose is to assess the performance of a pre-trained deep learning model in the task of classifying between coronavirus disease (COVID)-positive and COVID-negative patients from chest radiographs (CXRs) while considering various image acquisition parameters, clinical factors, and patient demographics. Methods: Standard and soft-tissue CXRs of 9860 patients comprised the "original dataset," consisting of training and test sets and were used to train a DenseNet-121 architecture model to classify COVID-19 using three classification algorithms: standard, soft tissue, and a combination of both types of images via feature fusion. A larger more-current test set of 5893 patients (the "current test set") was used to assess the performance of the pretrained model. The current test set contained a larger span of dates, incorporated different variants of the virus and included different immunization statuses. Model performance between the original and current test sets was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC) [95% CI]. Results: The model achieved AUC values of 0.67 [0.65, 0.70] for cropped standard images, 0.65 [0.63, 0.67] for cropped soft-tissue images, and 0.67 [0.65, 0.69] for both types of cropped images. These were all significantly lower than the performance of the model on the original test set. Investigations regarding matching the acquisition dates between the test sets (i.e., controlling for virus variants), immunization status, disease severity, and age and sex distributions did not fully explain the discrepancy in performance. Conclusions: Several relevant factors were considered to determine whether differences existed in the test sets, including time period of image acquisition, vaccination status, and disease severity. The lower performance on the current test set may have occurred due to model overfitting and a lack of generalizability.
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.