Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38467705›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Generalizable disease detection using model ensemble on chest X-ray images.

Maider Abad, Jordi Casas-Roma, Ferran Prados

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Maider AbadUniversitat Oberta de Catalunya, e-Health Center, Barcelona, Spain. mabdvz@uoc.edu.
Jordi Casas-RomaUniversitat Oberta de Catalunya, e-Health Center, Barcelona, Spain.
Ferran PradosUniversitat Oberta de Catalunya, e-Health Center, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the realm of healthcare, the demand for swift and precise diagnostic tools has been steadily increasing. This study delves into a comprehensive performance analysis of three pre-trained convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures: ResNet50, DenseNet121, and Inception-ResNet-v2. To ensure the broad applicability of our approach, we curated a large-scale dataset comprising a diverse collection of chest X-ray images, that included both positive and negative cases of COVID-19. The models' performance was evaluated using separate datasets for internal validation (from the same source as the training images) and external validation (from different sources). Our examination uncovered a significant drop in network efficacy, registering a 10.66% reduction for ResNet50, a 36.33% decline for DenseNet121, and a 19.55% decrease for Inception-ResNet-v2 in terms of accuracy. Best results were obtained with DenseNet121 achieving the highest accuracy at 96.71% in internal validation and Inception-ResNet-v2 attaining 76.70% accuracy in external validation. Furthermore, we introduced a model ensemble approach aimed at improving network performance when making inferences on images from diverse sources beyond their training data. The proposed method uses uncertainty-based weighting by calculating the entropy in order to assign appropriate weights to the outputs of each network. Our results showcase the effectiveness of the ensemble method in enhancing accuracy up to 97.38% for internal validation and 81.18% for external validation, while maintaining a balanced ability to detect both positive and negative cases.

Indexed as

COVID-19ThoraxEntropyHealth FacilitiesHumansX-RaysDomain adaptationEnsemble classifierPre-trained modelsTransfer learningX-ray imaging

Identifiers

PMID38467705
PMCPMC10928229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.