Interpreting Uncertainty in Model Predictions for Covid-19 Diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
COVID-19, due to its accelerated spread has brought in the need to use assistive tools for faster diagnosis in addition to typical lab swab testing. Chest X-Rays for COVID cases tend to show changes in the lungs such as ground glass opacities and peripheral consolidations which can be detected by deep neural networks. However, traditional convolutional networks use point estimate for predictions, lacking in capture of uncertainty, which makes them less reliable for adoption. There have been several works so far in predicting COVID positive cases with chest X-Rays. However, not much has been explored on quantifying the uncertainty of these predictions, interpreting uncertainty, and decomposing this to model or data uncertainty. To address these needs, we develop a visualization framework to address interpretability of uncertainty and its components, with uncertainty in predictions computed with a Bayesian Convolutional Neural Network. This framework aims to understand the contribution of individual features in the Chest-X-Ray images to predictive uncertainty. Providing this as an assistive tool can help the radiologist understand why the model came up with a prediction and whether the regions of interest captured by the model for the specific prediction are of significance in diagnosis. We demonstrate the usefulness of the tool in chest x-ray interpretation through several test cases from a benchmark 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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 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".