The value of deep learning-based computer aided diagnostic system in improving diagnostic performance of rib fractures in acute blunt trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the value of a deep learning-based computer-aided diagnostic system (DL-CAD) in improving the diagnostic performance of acute rib fractures in patients with chest trauma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT images of 214 patients with acute blunt chest trauma were retrospectively analyzed by two interns and two attending radiologists independently firstly and then with the assistance of a DL-CAD one month later, in a blinded and randomized manner. The consensusdiagnosis of fib fracture by another two senior thoracic radiologists was regarded as reference standard. The rib fracture diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, diagnostic confidence and mean reading time with and without DL-CAD were calculated and compared. RESULTS: There were 680 rib fracture lesions confirmed as reference standard among all patients. The diagnostic sensitivity and positive predictive value of interns weresignificantly improved from (68.82%, 84.50%) to (91.76%, 93.17%) with the assistance of DL-CAD, respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity and positive predictive value of attendings aided by DL-CAD (94.56%, 95.67%) or not aided (86.47%, 93.83%), respectively. In addition, when radiologists were assisted by DL-CAD, the mean reading time was significantly reduced, and diagnostic confidence was significantly enhanced. CONCLUSIONS: DL-CAD improves the diagnostic performance of acute rib fracture in chest trauma patients, which increases the diagnostic confidence, sensitivity, and positive predictive value for radiologists. DL-CAD can advance the diagnostic consistency of radiologists with different experiences.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".