Towards computer-aided severity assessment via deep neural networks for geographic and opacity extent scoring of SARS-CoV-2 chest X-rays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A critical step in effective care and treatment planning for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, is the assessment of the severity of disease progression. Chest x-rays (CXRs) are often used to assess SARS-CoV-2 severity, with two important assessment metrics being extent of lung involvement and degree of opacity. In this proof-of-concept study, we assess the feasibility of computer-aided scoring of CXRs of SARS-CoV-2 lung disease severity using a deep learning system. Data consisted of 396 CXRs from SARS-CoV-2 positive patient cases. Geographic extent and opacity extent were scored by two board-certified expert chest radiologists (with 20+ years of experience) and a 2nd-year radiology resident. The deep neural networks used in this study, which we name COVID-Net S, are based on a COVID-Net network architecture. 100 versions of the network were independently learned (50 to perform geographic extent scoring and 50 to perform opacity extent scoring) using random subsets of CXRs from the study, and we evaluated the networks using stratified Monte Carlo cross-validation experiments. The COVID-Net S deep neural networks yielded R[Formula: see text] of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] between predicted scores and radiologist scores for geographic extent and opacity extent, respectively, in stratified Monte Carlo cross-validation experiments. The best performing COVID-Net S networks achieved R[Formula: see text] of 0.739 and 0.741 between predicted scores and radiologist scores for geographic extent and opacity extent, respectively. The results are promising and suggest that the use of deep neural networks on CXRs could be an effective tool for computer-aided assessment of SARS-CoV-2 lung disease severity, although additional studies are needed before adoption for routine clinical use.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".