Comparison of error rates between four pretrained DenseNet convolutional neural network models and 13 board‐certified veterinary radiologists when evaluating 15 labels of canine thoracic radiographs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are commonly used as artificial intelligence (AI) tools for evaluating radiographs, but published studies testing their performance in veterinary patients are currently lacking. The purpose of this retrospective, secondary analysis, diagnostic accuracy study was to compare the error rates of four CNNs to the error rates of 13 veterinary radiologists for evaluating canine thoracic radiographs using an independent gold standard. Radiographs acquired at a referral institution were used to evaluate the four CNNs sharing a common architecture. Fifty radiographic studies were selected at random. The studies were evaluated independently by three board-certified veterinary radiologists for the presence or absence of 15 thoracic labels, thus creating the gold standard through the majority rule. The labels included "cardiovascular," "pulmonary," "pleural," "airway," and "other categories." The error rates for each of the CNNs and for 13 additional board-certified veterinary radiologists were calculated on those same studies. There was no statistical difference in the error rates among the four CNNs for the majority of the labels. However, the CNN's training method impacted the overall error rate for three of 15 labels. The veterinary radiologists had a statistically lower error rate than all four CNNs overall and for five labels (33%). There was only one label ("esophageal dilation") for which two CNNs were superior to the veterinary radiologists. Findings from the current study raise numerous questions that need to be addressed to further develop and standardize AI in the veterinary radiology environment and to optimize patient care.
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 | 0.014 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".