Deep Learning for Pneumothorax Detection on Chest Radiograph: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Review and Meta Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pneumothorax is a common acute presentation in healthcare settings. A chest radiograph (CXR) is often necessary to make the diagnosis, and minimizing the time between presentation and diagnosis is critical to deliver optimal treatment. Deep learning (DL) algorithms have been developed to rapidly identify pathologic findings on various imaging modalities. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the overall performance of studies utilizing DL algorithms to detect pneumothorax on CXR. METHODS: A study protocol was created and registered a priori (PROSPERO CRD42023391375). The search strategy included studies published up until January 10, 2023. Inclusion criteria were studies that used adult patients, utilized computer-aided detection of pneumothorax on CXR, dataset was evaluated by a qualified physician, and sufficient data was present to create a 2 × 2 contingency table. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Bivariate random effects meta-analyses and meta-regression modeling were performed. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were selected, including 34 011 patients and 34 075 CXRs. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 87% (95% confidence interval, 81%, 92%) and 95% (95% confidence interval, 92%, 97%), respectively. The study design, use of an institutional/public data set and risk of bias had no significant effect on the sensitivity and specificity of pneumothorax detection. CONCLUSIONS: The relatively high sensitivity and specificity of pneumothorax detection by deep-learning showcases the vast potential for implementation in clinical settings to both augment the workflow of radiologists and assist in more rapid diagnoses and subsequent patient treatment.
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 | 0.019 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".