ArticleJournal of imaging2024
Exploration of Interpretability Techniques for Deep COVID-19 Classification Using Chest X-ray Images.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficient SqueezeViT: A lightweight vision transformer framework for chest X-ray image classification.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Improving explainable AI with patch perturbation-based evaluation pipeline: a COVID-19 X-ray image analysis case study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- LWSNet - a novel deep-learning architecture to segregate Covid-19 and pneumonia from x-ray imagery.Multimedia tools and applications · 2023Article
- A novel framework based on deep learning for COVID-19 diagnosis from X-ray images.PeerJ. Computer science · 2023Article
- CVD-HNet: Classifying Pneumonia and COVID-19 in Chest X-ray Images Using Deep Network.Wireless personal communications · 2022Article
- A comparative analysis of eleven neural networks architectures for small datasets of lung images of COVID-19 patients toward improved clinical decisions.Computers in biology and medicine · 2021Article
- Checklist for responsible deep learning modeling of medical images based on COVID-19 detection studies.Pattern recognition · 2021Article
- Current limitations to identify covid-19 using artificial intelligence with chest x-ray imaging (part ii). The shortcut learning problem.Health and technology · 2021Review
- A Comprehensive Survey of COVID-19 Detection Using Medical Images.SN computer science · 2021Article
- Applications of artificial intelligence in battling against covid-19: A literature review.Chaos, solitons, and fractals · 2021Review
- AI-Empowered Computational Examination of Chest Imaging for COVID-19 Treatment: A Review.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The outbreak of COVID-19 has shocked the entire world with its fairly rapid spread, and has challenged different sectors. One of the most effective ways to limit its spread is the early and accurate diagnosing of infected patients. Medical imaging, such as X-ray and computed tomography (CT), combined with the potential of artificial intelligence (AI), plays an essential role in supporting medical personnel in the diagnosis process. Thus, in this article, five different deep learning models (ResNet18, ResNet34, InceptionV3, InceptionResNetV2, and DenseNet161) and their ensemble, using majority voting, have been used to classify COVID-19, pneumoniæ and healthy subjects using chest X-ray images. Multilabel classification was performed to predict multiple pathologies for each patient, if present. Firstly, the interpretability of each of the networks was thoroughly studied using local interpretability methods-occlusion, saliency, input X gradient, guided backpropagation, integrated gradients, and DeepLIFT-and using a global technique-neuron activation profiles. The mean micro F1 score of the models for COVID-19 classifications ranged from 0.66 to 0.875, and was 0.89 for the ensemble of the network models. The qualitative results showed that the ResNets were the most interpretable models. This research demonstrates the importance of using interpretability methods to compare different models before making a decision regarding the best performing model.
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.