ArticleiScience2024
Reinvestigating the performance of artificial intelligence classification algorithms on COVID-19 X-Ray and CT images.
Article in iScience, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A pilot evaluation of ChatGPT-4o-assisted hypothesis generation for exploring potential links between fungal biology and cervical cancer.Antonie van Leeuwenhoek · 2026Article
- StarMA Net: A star-shape multi-scale attention network for medical imaging classification.iScience · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are concerns that artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms may create underdiagnosis bias by mislabeling patient individuals with certain attributes (e.g., female and young) as healthy. Addressing this bias is crucial given the urgent need for AI diagnostics facing rapidly spreading infectious diseases like COVID-19. We find the prevalent AI diagnostic models show an underdiagnosis rate among specific patient populations, and the underdiagnosis rate is higher in some intersectional specific patient populations (for example, females aged 20-40 years). Additionally, we find training AI models on heterogeneous datasets (positive and negative samples from different datasets) may lead to poor model generalization. The model's classification performance varies significantly across test sets, with the accuracy of the better performance being over 40% higher than that of the poor performance. In conclusion, we developed an AI bias analysis pipeline to help researchers recognize and address biases that impact medical equality and ethics.
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.