ArticleScientific reports2025
CIRCA: comprehensible online system in support of chest X-rays-based screening by COVID-19 example.
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.
- POLCOVID: a multicenter multiclass chest X-ray database (Poland, 2020-2021).Scientific data · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chest X-rays (CXRs) are widely used for diagnosing respiratory diseases, including the recent example of COVID-19. Supervised deep learning techniques can help detect cases faster and monitor disease progression. However, they are usually developed using coarser data annotations, which may insufficiently capture the heterogeneous disease portrait. We propose the pipeline called CIRCA ( https://circa.aei.polsl.pl ) for a CXR-based screening support system, developed using 6 diverse datasets. Our tool includes lung segmentation, quantitative assessment of data heterogeneity, and a hierarchical three-class decision system using a convolutional network and radiomic features. Lung segmentation showed an accuracy of ~ 94% in the validation and test sets, while classification accuracy was equal 86%, 83%, and 72% for normal, COVID-19, and other pneumonia classes in the independent test set. Three radiomically distinct subtypes were identified per class. In the hold-out set, the classification subtype-specific cross-dataset NPV ranged from 95 to 100%, with PPV from 86 to 100% for all subtypes except N3 (early stage or convalescent) and both C3 and P3 (probable co-occurrence of COVID-19). Using an independent test set gave similar results. The dataset-specific subtype proportions combined with various predictive qualities of subtypes partly explain the widely reported poor generalization of AI-based prediction systems.
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.