Towards Building a Trustworthy Deep Learning Framework for Medical Image Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computer vision and deep learning have the potential to improve medical artificial intelligence (AI) by assisting in diagnosis, prediction, and prognosis. However, the application of deep learning to medical image analysis is challenging due to limited data availability and imbalanced data. While model performance is undoubtedly essential for medical image analysis, model trust is equally important. To address these challenges, we propose TRUDLMIA, a trustworthy deep learning framework for medical image analysis, which leverages image features learned through self-supervised learning and utilizes a novel surrogate loss function to build trustworthy models with optimal performance. The framework is validated on three benchmark data sets for detecting pneumonia, COVID-19, and melanoma, and the created models prove to be highly competitive, even outperforming those designed specifically for the tasks. Furthermore, we conduct ablation studies, cross-validation, and result visualization and demonstrate the contribution of proposed modules to both model performance (up to 21%) and model trust (up to 5%). We expect that the proposed framework will support researchers and clinicians in advancing the use of deep learning for dealing with public health crises, improving patient outcomes, increasing diagnostic accuracy, and enhancing the overall quality of healthcare delivery.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".