ArticleScientific reports2025
Cutting-edge bayesian deep learning and statistical strategies for bias mitigation in COVID-19 detection via chest x-ray imaging.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chest radiography (CXR is widely used for triage and follow-up of pulmonary disease, yet COVID-19 classification remains vulnerable to bias, label noise, and domain shift. We propose a multi-stage Bayesian deep learning framework that combines lung segmentation, segmentation-guided classification, calibrated ensembling, and uncertainty estimation to classify four classes (COVID-19, normal, viral pneumonia, bacterial pneumonia) and to grade COVID-19 severity. Models are trained and tested on 1,531 CXRs (100 COVID-19 images from 70 patients; 1,431 non-COVID images from ChestX-ray14) with patient-wise splits. The final ensemble achieves 98.33% test accuracy; COVID-19 sensitivity reaches 100% on this split. Robustness is quantified by stress-testing five image degradations (Gaussian noise, motion/defocus blur, JPEG compression, and downsampling), with macro AUC drops remaining small at moderate severities and larger under strong blur or heavy downsampling. Saliency and context-relevance analyses are used to identify spurious cues. The study is limited by dataset size and lack of external multi-site validation; a planned evaluation on COVIDx and BIMCV-COVID19 + is outlined.
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.