MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Deep Learning and Federated Learning for Screening COVID-19: A Review

2023· review· en· W4386369761 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioMedInformatics · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 diagnosis using AI
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Deep learningArtificial intelligenceComputer science2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Machine learningMedical physicsData scienceComputed tomographyMedicineRadiologyDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Pathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since December 2019, a novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has infected millions of individuals. This paper conducts a thorough study of the use of deep learning (DL) and federated learning (FL) approaches to COVID-19 screening. To begin, an evaluation of research articles published between 1 January 2020 and 28 June 2023 is presented, considering the preferred reporting items of systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The review compares various datasets on medical imaging, including X-ray, computed tomography (CT) scans, and ultrasound images, in terms of the number of images, COVID-19 samples, and classes in the datasets. Following that, a description of existing DL algorithms applied to various datasets is offered. Additionally, a summary of recent work on FL for COVID-19 screening is provided. Efforts to improve the quality of FL models are comprehensively reviewed and objectively evaluated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.145
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it