ArticleCommunications medicine2024
Detection of COVID-19 features in lung ultrasound images using deep neural networks.
Article in Communications medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- MFFC-Net: Multi-feature Fusion Deep Networks for Classifying Pulmonary Edema of a Pilot Study by Using Lung Ultrasound Image with Texture Analysis and Transfer Learning Technique.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Overcoming barriers in the use of artificial intelligence in point of care ultrasound.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Detection of COVID-19 features in lung ultrasound images using deep neural networks.Communications medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDeep neural networks (DNNs) to detect COVID-19 features in lung ultrasound B-mode images have primarily relied on either in vivo or simulated images as training data. However, in vivo images suffer from limited access to required manual labeling of thousands of training image examples, and simulated images can suffer from poor generalizability to in vivo images due to domain differences. We address these limitations and identify the best training strategy.
methodsWe investigated in vivo COVID-19 feature detection with DNNs trained on our carefully simulated datasets (40,000 images), publicly available in vivo datasets (174 images), in vivo datasets curated by our team (958 images), and a combination of simulated and internal or external in vivo datasets. Seven DNN training strategies were tested on in vivo B-mode images from COVID-19 patients.
resultsHere, we show that Dice similarity coefficients (DSCs) between ground truth and DNN predictions are maximized when simulated data are mixed with external in vivo data and tested on internal in vivo data (i.e., 0.482 ± 0.211), compared with using only simulated B-mode image training data (i.e., 0.464 ± 0.230) or only external in vivo B-mode training data (i.e., 0.407 ± 0.177). Additional maximization is achieved when a separate subset of the internal in vivo B-mode images are included in the training dataset, with the greatest maximization of DSC (and minimization of required training time, or epochs) obtained after mixing simulated data with internal and external in vivo data during training, then testing on the held-out subset of the internal in vivo dataset (i.e., 0.735 ± 0.187).
conclusionsDNNs trained with simulated and in vivo data are promising alternatives to training with only real or only simulated data when segmenting in vivo COVID-19 lung ultrasound features.
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.