An Attention-Guided Deep Neural Network for Annotating Abnormalities in Chest X-ray Images: Visualization of Network Decision Basis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the potential of deep convolutional neural networks for classification of thorax diseases from chest X-ray images, this task is still challenging as it is categorized as a weakly supervised learning problem, and deep neural networks in general suffer from a lack of interpretability. In this paper, a deep convolutional neural network framework with recurrent attention mechanism was investigated to annotate abnormalities in chest X-ray images. A modified MobileNet architecture was adapted in the framework for classification and the prediction difference analysis method was utilized to visualize the basis of network's decision on each image. A long short-term memory network was utilized as the attention model to focus on relevant regions of each image for classification. The framework was evaluated on NIH chest X-ray dataset. The attention-guided model versus the model with no attention mechanism could annotate the images in an independent test set with an F1-score of 0.58 versus 0.46, and an AUC of 0.94 versus 0.73. The obtained results implied that the proposed attention-guided model could outperform the other methods investigated previously for annotating the same dataset.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".