Robust Automated Framework for COVID-19 Disease Identification from a Multicenter Dataset of Chest CT Scans.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to develop a robust deep learning-based framework to distinguish COVID-19, Community-Acquired Pneumonia (CAP), and Normal cases based on chest CT scans acquired in different imaging centers using various protocols, and radiation doses. We showed that while our proposed model is trained on a relatively small dataset acquired from only one imaging center using a specific scanning protocol, the model performs well on heterogeneous test sets obtained by multiple scanners using different technical parameters. We also showed that the model can be updated via an unsupervised approach to cope with the data shift between the train and test sets and enhance the robustness of the model upon receiving a new external dataset from a different center. We adopted an ensemble architecture to aggregate the predictions from multiple versions of the model. For initial training and development purposes, an in-house dataset of 171 COVID-19, 60 CAP, and 76 Normal cases was used, which contained volumetric CT scans acquired from one imaging center using a constant standard radiation dose scanning protocol. To evaluate the model, we collected four different test sets retrospectively to investigate the effects of the shifts in the data characteristics on the model's performance. Among the test cases, there were CT scans with similar characteristics as the train set as well as noisy low-dose and ultra-low dose CT scans. In addition, some test CT scans were obtained from patients with a history of cardiovascular diseases or surgeries. The entire test dataset used in this study contained 51 COVID-19, 28 CAP, and 51 Normal cases. Experimental results indicate that our proposed framework performs well on all test sets achieving total accuracy of 96.15% (95%CI: [91.25-98.74]), COVID-19 sensitivity of 96.08% (95%CI: [86.54-99.5]), CAP sensitivity of 92.86% (95%CI: [76.50-99.19]).
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".