Development of a deep learning classifier to accurately distinguish COVID-19 from look-a-like pathology on lung ultrasound
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a portable, low cost respiratory imaging tool but is challenged by user dependence and lack of diagnostic specificity. It is unknown whether the advantages of LUS implementation could be paired with deep learning techniques to match or exceed human-level, diagnostic specificity among similar appearing, pathological LUS images. Design A convolutional neural network was trained on LUS images with B lines of different etiologies. CNN diagnostic performance, as validated using a 10% data holdback set was compared to surveyed LUS-competent physicians. Setting Two tertiary Canadian hospitals. Participants 600 LUS videos (121,381 frames) of B lines from 243 distinct patients with either 1) COVID-19, Non-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome (NCOVID) and 3) Hydrostatic pulmonary edema (HPE). Results The trained CNN performance on the independent dataset showed an ability to discriminate between COVID (AUC 1.0), NCOVID (AUC 0.934) and HPE (AUC 1.0) pathologies. This was significantly better than physician ability (AUCs of 0.697, 0.704, 0.967 for the COVID, NCOVID and HPE classes, respectively), p < 0.01. Conclusions A deep learning model can distinguish similar appearing LUS pathology, including COVID-19, that cannot be distinguished by humans. The performance gap between humans and the model suggests that subvisible biomarkers within ultrasound images could exist and multi-center research is merited.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".