Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38573489›Full record

ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2024

Are deep learning classification results obtained on CT scans fair and interpretable?

Mohamad M A Ashames, Ahmet Demir, Omer N Gerek, Mehmet Fidan, M Bilginer Gulmezoglu, Semih Ergin, Rifat Edizkan, Mehmet Koc, Atalay Barkana, Cuneyt Calisir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Mohamad M A AshamesDepartment of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey.
Ahmet DemirDepartment of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey.
Omer N GerekDepartment of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Eskisehir Technical University, Eskisehir, Turkey.
Mehmet FidanVocational School of Transportation, Eskisehir Technical University, Eskisehir, Turkey.
M Bilginer GulmezogluDepartment of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey.
Semih ErginDepartment of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey.
Rifat EdizkanDepartment of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey.
Mehmet KocDepartment of Computer Engineering, Eskisehir Technical University, Eskisehir, Turkey. mehmetkoc@eskisehir.edu.tr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2919-6011
Atalay BarkanaDepartment of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Eskisehir Technical University, Eskisehir, Turkey.
Cuneyt CalisirDepartment of Radiology, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following the great success of various deep learning methods in image and object classification, the biomedical image processing society is also overwhelmed with their applications to various automatic diagnosis cases. Unfortunately, most of the deep learning-based classification attempts in the literature solely focus on the aim of extreme accuracy scores, without considering interpretability, or patient-wise separation of training and test data. For example, most lung nodule classification papers using deep learning randomly shuffle data and split it into training, validation, and test sets, causing certain images from the Computed Tomography (CT) scan of a person to be in the training set, while other images of the same person to be in the validation or testing image sets. This can result in reporting misleading accuracy rates and the learning of irrelevant features, ultimately reducing the real-life usability of these models. When the deep neural networks trained on the traditional, unfair data shuffling method are challenged with new patient images, it is observed that the trained models perform poorly. In contrast, deep neural networks trained with strict patient-level separation maintain their accuracy rates even when new patient images are tested. Heat map visualizations of the activations of the deep neural networks trained with strict patient-level separation indicate a higher degree of focus on the relevant nodules. We argue that the research question posed in the title has a positive answer only if the deep neural networks are trained with images of patients that are strictly isolated from the validation and testing patient sets.

Indexed as

Deep LearningTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedNeural Networks, ComputerChest CTDNNsInterpretability and reliabilityMalignancy classification

Identifiers

PMID38573489
PMCPMC11408573

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.