ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Assessment of a Grad-CAM interpretable deep learning model for HAPE diagnosis: performance and pitfalls in severity stratification from chest radiographs.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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.
- Deep Learning and Cardiovascular Diseases: An Updated Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the feasibility of a deep learning model, using a transfer learning approach, for recognizing high-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) on chest X-ray images and exploring its capability for assessing severity. STUDY
designRetrospective study.
methodsThis retrospective study utilized a multi-source dataset. The pretraining set was derived from the ARXIV_V5_CHESTXRAY database (3,923 images, including 2,303 with edema labels). The primary HAPE-specific training set comprised radiographs from the 950th Hospital of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (1,003 HAPE cases and 702 normal controls; 2007-2023). An external validation set was constructed from recent cases (Jan-Dec 2023) from two hospitals (679 HAPE cases and 436 normal controls), with strict patient separation. We implemented a multi-stage pipeline: (1) A DeepLabV3_ResNet-50 model was trained for lung segmentation on a subset of the pretraining set; (2) MobileNet_V2 and VGG19 architectures underwent pretraining for general pulmonary edema severity grading on the ARXIV_V5_CHESTXRAY dataset; (3) These models were then fine-tuned on the HAPE-specific training set.
resultsThe segmentation model achieved a Dice coefficient of 99.03%. The binary classification model (VGG19) for edema detection achieved a validation AUC of 0.950. The multi-class models (MobileNet_V2) achieved macroaverage AUCs of 0.92 (3-class) and 0.89 (4-class). The model demonstrated high performance in distinguishing normal (class 0) and severe edema (class 3) (sensitivities: 0.91, 0.88). However, performance was critically low for intermediate grades (classes 1 and 2; sensitivities: 0.16, 0.37).
conclusionsTransfer learning from general to HAPE-specific edema data produced a model that accurately segments lungs and differentiates severe HAPE from normal cases with high performance. However, its failure to reliably identify intermediate grades underscores the challenges of domain shift and fine-grained radiographic assessment. This work highlights both the promise and pitfalls of using heterogeneous datasets for rare disease diagnosis.
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.