Comparison of the Discrimination Performance of AI Scoring and the Brixia Score in Predicting COVID-19 Severity on Chest X-Ray Imaging: Diagnostic Accuracy Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The artificial intelligence (AI) analysis of chest x-rays can increase the precision of binary COVID-19 diagnosis. However, it is unknown if AI-based chest x-rays can predict who will develop severe COVID-19, especially in low- and middle-income countries. OBJECTIVE: The study aims to compare the performance of human radiologist Brixia scores versus 2 AI scoring systems in predicting the severity of COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of 300 patients suspected with and with confirmed COVID-19 infection in Jakarta, Indonesia. A total of 2 AI scores were generated using CAD4COVID x-ray software. RESULTS: The AI probability score had slightly lower discrimination (area under the curve [AUC] 0.787, 95% CI 0.722-0.852). The AI score for the affected lung area (AUC 0.857, 95% CI 0.809-0.905) was almost as good as the human Brixia score (AUC 0.863, 95% CI 0.818-0.908). CONCLUSIONS: The AI score for the affected lung area and the human radiologist Brixia score had similar and good discrimination performance in predicting COVID-19 severity. Our study demonstrated that using AI-based diagnostic tools is possible, even in low-resource settings. However, before it is widely adopted in daily practice, more studies with a larger scale and that are prospective in nature are needed to confirm our findings.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".