Learning to detect chest radiographs containing pulmonary lesions using visual attention networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning approaches hold great potential for the automated detection of lung nodules on chest radiographs, but training algorithms requires very large amounts of manually annotated radiographs, which are difficult to obtain. The increasing availability of PACS (Picture Archiving and Communication System), is laying the technological foundations needed to make available large volumes of clinical data and images from hospital archives. Binary labels indicating whether a radiograph contains a pulmonary lesion can be extracted at scale, using natural language processing algorithms. In this study, we propose two novel neural networks for the detection of chest radiographs containing pulmonary lesions. Both architectures make use of a large number of weakly-labelled images combined with a smaller number of manually annotated x-rays. The annotated lesions are used during training to deliver a type of visual attention feedback informing the networks about their lesion localisation performance. The first architecture extracts saliency maps from high-level convolutional layers and compares the inferred position of a lesion against the true position when this information is available; a localisation error is then back-propagated along with the softmax classification error. The second approach consists of a recurrent attention model that learns to observe a short sequence of smaller image portions through reinforcement learning; the reward function penalises the exploration of areas, within an image, that are unlikely to contain nodules. Using a repository of over 430,000 historical chest radiographs, we present and discuss the proposed methods over related architectures that use either weakly-labelled or annotated images only.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".