Developing medical imaging AI for emerging infectious diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and computer vision hold great promise for assisting medical staff, optimizing healthcare workflow, and improving patient outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic, which caused unprecedented stress on healthcare systems around the world, presented what seems to be a perfect opportunity for AI to demonstrate its usefulness. However, of the several hundred medical imaging AI models developed for COVID-19, very few were fit for deployment in real-world settings, and some were potentially harmful. This review aims to examine the strengths and weaknesses of prior studies and provide recommendations for different stages of building useful AI models for medical imaging, among them: needfinding, dataset curation, model development and evaluation, and post-deployment considerations. In addition, this review summarizes the lessons learned to inform the scientific community about ways to create useful medical imaging AI in a future pandemic. Very few of the COVID-19 ML models were fit for deployment in real-world settings. In this Comment, Huang et al. discuss the main steps required to develop clinically useful models in the context of an emerging infectious disease.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".