Evaluation of the feasibility of explainable computer-aided detection of cardiomegaly on chest radiographs using deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the feasibility of explainable computer-aided detection of cardiomegaly in routine clinical practice using segmentation-based methods. Overall, 793 retrospectively acquired posterior-anterior (PA) chest X-ray images (CXRs) of 793 patients were used to train deep learning (DL) models for lung and heart segmentation. The training dataset included PA CXRs from two public datasets and in-house PA CXRs. Two fully automated segmentation-based methods using state-of-the-art DL models for lung and heart segmentation were developed. The diagnostic performance was assessed and the reliability of the automatic cardiothoracic ratio (CTR) calculation was determined using the mean absolute error and paired t-test. The effects of thoracic pathological conditions on performance were assessed using subgroup analysis. One thousand PA CXRs of 1000 patients (480 men, 520 women; mean age 63 ± 23 years) were included. The CTR values derived from the DL models and diagnostic performance exhibited excellent agreement with reference standards for the whole test dataset. Performance of segmentation-based methods differed based on thoracic conditions. When tested using CXRs with lesions obscuring heart borders, the performance was lower than that for other thoracic pathological findings. Thus, segmentation-based methods using DL could detect cardiomegaly; however, the feasibility of computer-aided detection of cardiomegaly without human intervention was limited.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".