To segment or not to segment: COVID-19 detection for chest X-rays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has been integrated into most technologies we use. One of the most promising applications in AI is medical imaging. Research demonstrates that AI has improved the performance of most medical imaging analysis systems. Consequently, AI has become a fundamental element of the state of the art with improved outcomes across a variety of medical imaging applications. Moreover, it is believed that computer vision (CV) algorithms are highly effective for image analysis. Recent advances in CV facilitate the recognition of patterns in medical images. In this manner, we investigate CV segmentation techniques for COVID-19 analysis. We use different segmentation techniques, such as k-means, U-net, and flood fill, to extract the lung region from CXRs. Afterwards, we compare the effectiveness of these three segmentation approaches when applied to CXRs. Then, we use machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models to identify COVID-19 lesion molecules in both healthy and pathological lung x-rays. We evaluate our ML and DL findings in the context of CV techniques. Our results indicate that the segmentation-related CV techniques do not exhibit comparable performance to DL and ML techniques. The most optimal AI algorithm yields an accuracy range of 0.92-0.94, whereas the addition of CV algorithms leads to a reduction in accuracy to approximately the range of 0.81-0.88. In addition, we test the performance of DL models under real-world noise, such as salt and pepper noise, which negatively impacts the overall 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".