ArticleScientific reports2024
Integrated ensemble CNN and explainable AI for COVID-19 diagnosis from CT scan and X-ray images.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Responsible artificial intelligence in medical imaging: a systematic review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
- AI-driven techniques for detection and mitigation of SARS-CoV-2 spread: a review, taxonomy, and trends.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Deep learning classification of nasal anatomical variants on computed tomography for endoscopic sinus surgery.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in respiratory medicine: From diagnosis to treatment and future directions.Chinese medical journal pulmonary and critical care medicine · 2026Review
- A comprehensive review of explainable artificial intelligence in healthcare methods, evaluation, and clinical integration.iScience · 2026Review
- Article
- An efficient dual path deep learning framework for COVID-19 classification using lung CT scans with explainable AI.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- XTC-Net: an explainable hybrid model for automated atelectasis detection from chest radiographs.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- IHRAS: Automated Medical Report Generation from Chest X-Rays via Classification, Segmentation, and LLMs.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Prognostic Value of the Brixia Radiological Score in COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Study from Romania.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In light of the ongoing battle against COVID-19, while the pandemic may eventually subside, sporadic cases may still emerge, underscoring the need for accurate detection from radiological images. However, the limited explainability of current deep learning models restricts clinician acceptance. To address this issue, our research integrates multiple CNN models with explainable AI techniques, ensuring model interpretability before ensemble construction. Our approach enhances both accuracy and interpretability by evaluating advanced CNN models on the largest publicly available X-ray dataset, COVIDx CXR-3, which includes 29,986 images, and the CT scan dataset for SARS-CoV-2 from Kaggle, which includes a total of 2,482 images. We also employed additional public datasets for cross-dataset evaluation, ensuring a thorough assessment of model performance across various imaging conditions. By leveraging methods including LIME, SHAP, Grad-CAM, and Grad-CAM++, we provide transparent insights into model decisions. Our ensemble model, which includes DenseNet169, ResNet50, and VGG16, demonstrates strong performance. For the X-ray image dataset, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, F1-score, and AUC are recorded at 99.00%, 99.00%, 99.00%, 0.99, and 0.99, respectively. For the CT image dataset, these metrics are 96.18%, 96.18%, 96.18%, 0.9618, and 0.96, respectively. Our methodology bridges the gap between precision and interpretability in clinical settings by combining model diversity with explainability, promising enhanced disease diagnosis and greater clinician acceptance.
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.