Automatic Screening of Pediatric Renal Ultrasound Abnormalities: Deep Learning and Transfer Learning Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, the progress and generalization surrounding portable ultrasonic probes has made ultrasound (US) a useful tool for physicians when making a diagnosis. With the advent of machine learning and deep learning, the development of a computer-aided diagnostic system for screening renal US abnormalities can assist general practitioners in the early detection of pediatric kidney diseases. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we sought to evaluate the diagnostic performance of deep learning techniques to classify kidney images as normal and abnormal. METHODS: We chose 330 normal and 1269 abnormal pediatric renal US images for establishing a model for artificial intelligence. The abnormal images involved stones, cysts, hyperechogenicity, space-occupying lesions, and hydronephrosis. We performed preprocessing of the original images for subsequent deep learning. We redefined the final connecting layers for classification of the extracted features as abnormal or normal from the ResNet-50 pretrained model. The performances of the model were tested by a validation data set using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity. RESULTS: The deep learning model, 94 MB parameters in size, based on ResNet-50, was built for classifying normal and abnormal images. The accuracy, (%)/area under curve, of the validated images of stone, cyst, hyperechogenicity, space-occupying lesions, and hydronephrosis were 93.2/0.973, 91.6/0.940, 89.9/0.940, 91.3/0.934, and 94.1/0.996, respectively. The accuracy of normal image classification in the validation data set was 90.1%. Overall accuracy of (%)/area under curve was 92.9/0.959.. CONCLUSIONS: We established a useful, computer-aided model for automatic classification of pediatric renal US images in terms of normal and abnormal categories.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".