A Review of Recent Advances in Deep Learning Models for Chest Disease Detection Using Radiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chest X-ray radiography (CXR) is among the most frequently used medical imaging modalities. It has a preeminent value in the detection of multiple life-threatening diseases. Radiologists can visually inspect CXR images for the presence of diseases. Most thoracic diseases have very similar patterns, which makes diagnosis prone to human error and leads to misdiagnosis. Computer-aided detection (CAD) of lung diseases in CXR images is among the popular topics in medical imaging research. Machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) provided techniques to make this task more efficient and faster. Numerous experiments in the diagnosis of various diseases proved the potential of these techniques. In comparison to previous reviews our study describes in detail several publicly available CXR datasets for different diseases. It presents an overview of recent deep learning models using CXR images to detect chest diseases such as VGG, ResNet, DenseNet, Inception, EfficientNet, RetinaNet, and ensemble learning methods that combine multiple models. It summarizes the techniques used for CXR image preprocessing (enhancement, segmentation, bone suppression, and data-augmentation) to improve image quality and address data imbalance issues, as well as the use of DL models to speed-up the diagnosis process. This review also discusses the challenges present in the published literature and highlights the importance of interpretability and explainability to better understand the DL models' detections. In addition, it outlines a direction for researchers to help develop more effective models for early and automatic detection of chest diseases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".