ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2024
Impact of retraining and data partitions on the generalizability of a deep learning model in the task of COVID-19 classification on chest radiographs.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 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
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the impact of different model retraining schemes and data partitioning on model performance in the task of COVID-19 classification on standard chest radiographs (CXRs), in the context of model generalizability. Approach: Two datasets from the same institution were used: Set A (9860 patients, collected from 02/20/2020 to 02/03/2021) and Set B (5893 patients, collected from 03/15/2020 to 01/01/2022). An original deep learning (DL) model trained and tested in the task of COVID-19 classification using the initial partition of Set A achieved an area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.76, whereas Set B yielded a significantly lower value of 0.67. To explore this discrepancy, four separate strategies were undertaken on the original model: (1) retrain using Set B, (2) fine-tune using Set B, (3) Results: The model achieved the following AUC values (95% confidence interval) for the four methods: (1) 0.61 [0.56, 0.66]; (2) 0.70 [0.66, 0.73], both on Set B; (3) 0.76 [0.72, 0.79] on the initial test partition of Set A and 0.68 [0.66, 0.70] on Set B; and (4) Conclusions: Different data repartitions of the same dataset used to train a DL model demonstrated significantly different performance values that helped explain the discrepancy between Set A and Set B and further demonstrated the limitations of model generalizability.
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.