Deep Learning Techniques for COVID-19 Diagnosis and Prognosis Based on Radiological Imaging
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This literature review summarizes the current deep learning methods developed by the medical imaging AI research community that have been focused on resolving lung imaging problems related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). COVID-19 shares many of the same imaging characteristics as other common forms of bacterial and viral pneumonia. Differentiating COVID-19 from other common pulmonary infections is a non-trivial task. To help offset what commonly requires hours of tedious manual annotation, several innovative solutions have been published to help healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the absence of a comprehensive survey on the subject makes it challenging to ascertain which approaches are promising and therefore deserve further investigation. In this survey, we present an in-depth review of deep learning techniques that have recently been applied to the task of discovering the diagnosis and prognosis of COVID-19 patients. We categorize existing approaches based on features such as dimensionality of radiological imaging, system purpose, and used deep learning techniques, underlying core issues, and challenges. We also address the merits and shortcomings of various approaches, and finally we discuss future directions for this research.
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.
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 | 0.010 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 it