Biased Deep Learning Methods in Detection of COVID-19 Using CT Images: A Challenge Mounted by Subject-Wise-Split ISFCT Dataset
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
Accurate detection of respiratory system damage including COVID-19 is considered one of the crucial applications of deep learning (DL) models using CT images. However, the main shortcoming of the published works has been unreliable reported accuracy and the lack of repeatability with new datasets, mainly due to slice-wise splits of the data, creating dependency between training and test sets due to shared data across the sets. We introduce a new dataset of CT images (ISFCT Dataset) with labels indicating the subject-wise split to train and test our DL algorithms in an unbiased manner. We also use this dataset to validate the real performance of the published works in a subject-wise data split. Another key feature provides more specific labels (eight characteristic lung features) rather than being limited to COVID-19 and healthy labels. We show that the reported high accuracy of the existing models on current slice-wise splits is not repeatable for subject-wise splits, and distribution differences between data splits are demonstrated using t-distribution stochastic neighbor embedding. We indicate that, by examining subject-wise data splitting, less complicated models show competitive results compared to the exiting complicated models, demonstrating that complex models do not necessarily generate accurate and repeatable results.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 it