ArticleMedical physics2025
Evaluating the robustness of deep learning models trained to diagnose idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis using a retrospective study.
Article in Medical physics, 2025. 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.
- Toward precision imaging in interstitial lung disease: advances in quantitative imaging and artificial intelligence.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: advances, challenges and future directions.The European respiratory journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDeep learning (DL)-based systems have not yet been broadly implemented in clinical practice, in part due to unknown robustness across multiple imaging protocols. PURPOSE: To this end, we aim to evaluate the performance of several previously developed DL-based models, which were trained to distinguish idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) from non-IPF among interstitial lung disease (ILD) patients, under standardized reference CT imaging protocols. In this study, we utilized CT scans from non-IPF ILD subjects, acquired using various imaging protocols, to assess the model performance.
methodsThree DL-based models, including one 2D and two 3D models, have been previously developed to classify ILD patients into IPF or non-IPF based on chest CT scans. These models were trained on CT image data from 389 IPF and 700 non-IPF ILD patients, retrospectively, obtained from five multicenter studies. For some patients, multiple CT scans were acquired (e.g., one at inhalation and one at exhalation) and/or reconstructed (e.g., thin slice and/or thick slice). Thus, for each patient, one CT image dataset was selected to be used in the construction of the classification model, so the parameters of that data set serve as the reference conditions. In one non-IPF ILD study, due to its specific study protocol, many patients had multiple CT image data sets that were acquired under both prone and supine positions and/or reconstructed under different imaging parameters. Therefore, to assess the robustness of the previously developed models under different (e.g., non-reference) imaging protocols, we identified 343 subjects from this study who had CT data from both the reference condition (used in model construction) and non-reference conditions (e.g., evaluation conditions), which we used in this model evaluation analysis. We reported the specificities from three model under the non-reference conditions. Generalized linear mixed effects model (GLMM) was utilized to identify the significant CT technical and clinical parameters that were associated with getting inconsistent diagnostic results between reference and evaluation conditions. Selected parameters include effective tube current-time product (known as "effective mAs"), reconstruction kernels, slice thickness, patient orientation (prone or supine), CT scanner model, and clinical diagnosis. Limitations include the retrospective nature of this study.
resultsFor all three DL models, the overall specificity of the previously trained IPF diagnosis model decreased (p < 0.05 for two out of three models). GLMM further suggests that for at least one out of three models, mean effective mAs across the scan is the key factor that leads to the decrease in model predictive performance (p < 0.001); the difference of mean effective mAs between the reference and evaluation conditions (p = 0.03) and slice thickness (3 mm; p = 0.03) are flagged as significant factors for one out of three models; other factors are not statistically significant (p > 0.05).
conclusionPreliminary findings demonstrated the lack of robustness of IPF diagnosis model when the DL-based model is applied to CT series collected under different imaging protocols, which indicated that care should be taken as to the acquisition and reconstruction conditions used when developing and deploying DL models into clinical practice.
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.