ArticleScientific reports2025
Gradual poisoning of a chest x-ray convolutional neural network with an adversarial attack and AI explainability methods.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An Introduction to AI for Clinicians: Tutorial.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given artificial intelligence's transformative effects, studying safety is important to ensure it is implemented in a beneficial way. Convolutional neural networks are used in radiology research for prediction but can be corrupted through adversarial attacks. This study investigates the effect of an adversarial attack, through poisoned data. To improve generalizability, we create a generic ResNet pneumonia classification model and then use it as an example by subjecting it to BadNets adversarial attacks. The study uses various poisoned datasets of different compositions (2%, 16.7% and 100% ratios of poisoned data) and two different test sets (a normal set of test data and one that contained poisoned images) to study the effects of BadNets. To provide a visual effect of the progressing corruption of the models, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were used. As corruption progressed, interval analysis revealed that performance on a valid test set decreased while the model learned to predict better on a poisoned test set. SHAP visualization showed focus on the trigger. In the 16.7% poisoned model, SHAP focus did not fixate on the trigger in the normal test set. Minimal effects were seen in the 2% model. SHAP visualization showed decreasing performance was correlated with increasing focus on the trigger. Corruption could potentially be masked in the 16.7% model unless subjected specifically to poisoned data. A minimum threshold for corruption may exist. The study demonstrates insights that can be further studied in future work and with future models. It also identifies areas of potential intervention for safeguarding models against adversarial attacks.
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.