ArticleFrontiers in radiology2024
Multi-centre benchmarking of deep learning models for COVID-19 detection in chest x-rays.
Article in Frontiers in radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study is a retrospective evaluation of the performance of deep learning models that were developed for the detection of COVID-19 from chest x-rays, undertaken with the goal of assessing the suitability of such systems as clinical decision support tools. Methods: Models were trained on the National COVID-19 Chest Imaging Database (NCCID), a UK-wide multi-centre dataset from 26 different NHS hospitals and evaluated on independent multi-national clinical datasets. The evaluation considers clinical and technical contributors to model error and potential model bias. Model predictions are examined for spurious feature correlations using techniques for explainable prediction. Results: Models performed adequately on NHS populations, with performance comparable to radiologists, but generalised poorly to international populations. Models performed better in males than females, and performance varied across age groups. Alarmingly, models routinely failed when applied to complex clinical cases with confounding pathologies and when applied to radiologist defined "mild" cases. Discussion: This comprehensive benchmarking study examines the pitfalls in current practices that have led to impractical model development. Key findings highlight the need for clinician involvement at all stages of model development, from data curation and label definition, to model evaluation, to ensure that all clinical factors and disease features are appropriately considered during model design. This is imperative to ensure automated approaches developed for disease detection are fit-for-purpose in a clinical setting.
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.