ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2024
Are deep learning classification results obtained on CT scans fair and interpretable?
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adnexal torsion diagnosis framework with CT-based adaptive preprocessing and deep neural networks.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Deep Learning Approaches for Classifying Children With and Without Autism Spectrum Disorder Using Inertial Measurement Unit Hand Tracking Data: Comparative Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.