Machine Learning Model for Chest Radiographs: Using Local Data to Enhance Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop and assess the performance of a machine learning model which screens chest radiographs for 14 labels, and to determine whether fine-tuning the model on local data improves its performance. Generalizability at different institutions has been an obstacle to machine learning model implementation. We hypothesized that the performance of a model trained on an open-source dataset will improve at our local institution after being fine-tuned on local data. METHODS: In this retrospective, institutional review board approved study, an ensemble of neural networks was trained on open-source datasets of chest radiographs for the detection of 14 labels. This model was then fine-tuned using 4510 local radiograph studies, using radiologists' reports as the gold standard to evaluate model performance. Both the open-source and fine-tuned models' accuracy were tested on 802 local radiographs. Receiver-operator characteristic curves were calculated, and statistical analysis was completed using DeLong's method and Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: < .01). CONCLUSIONS: A machine learning model able to accurately detect 14 labels simultaneously on chest radiographs was developed using open-source data, and its performance was improved after fine-tuning on local site data. This simple method of fine-tuning existing models on local data could improve the generalizability of existing models across different institutions to further improve their local performance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".