Automation of Lung Ultrasound Interpretation via Deep Learning for the Classification of Normal versus Abnormal Lung Parenchyma: A Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung ultrasound (LUS) is an accurate thoracic imaging technique distinguished by its handheld size, low-cost, and lack of radiation. User dependence and poor access to training have limited the impact and dissemination of LUS outside of acute care hospital environments. Automated interpretation of LUS using deep learning can overcome these barriers by increasing accuracy while allowing point-of-care use by non-experts. In this multicenter study, we seek to automate the clinically vital distinction between A line (normal parenchyma) and B line (abnormal parenchyma) on LUS by training a customized neural network using 272,891 labelled LUS images. After external validation on 23,393 frames, pragmatic clinical application at the clip level was performed on 1162 videos. The trained classifier demonstrated an area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.96 (±0.02) through 10-fold cross-validation on local frames and an AUC of 0.93 on the external validation dataset. Clip-level inference yielded sensitivities and specificities of 90% and 92% (local) and 83% and 82% (external), respectively, for detecting the B line pattern. This study demonstrates accurate deep-learning-enabled LUS interpretation between normal and abnormal lung parenchyma on ultrasound frames while rendering diagnostically important sensitivity and specificity at the video clip level.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".