Deep Machine Learning for Medical Diagnosis, Application to Lung Cancer Detection: A Review
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
Deep learning has emerged as a powerful tool for medical image analysis and diagnosis, demonstrating high performance on tasks such as cancer detection. This literature review synthesizes current research on deep learning techniques applied to lung cancer screening and diagnosis. This review summarizes the state-of-the-art in deep learning for lung cancer detection, highlighting key advances, limitations, and future directions. We prioritized studies utilizing major public datasets, such as LIDC, LUNA16, and JSRT, to provide a comprehensive overview of the field. We focus on deep learning architectures, including 2D and 3D convolutional neural networks (CNNs), dual-path networks, Natural Language Processing (NLP) and vision transformers (ViT). Across studies, deep learning models consistently outperformed traditional machine learning techniques in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for lung cancer detection in CT scans. This is attributed to the ability of deep learning models to automatically learn discriminative features from medical images and model complex spatial relationships. However, several challenges remain to be addressed before deep learning models can be widely deployed in clinical practice. These include model dependence on training data, generalization across datasets, integration of clinical metadata, and model interpretability. Overall, deep learning demonstrates great potential for lung cancer detection and precision medicine. However, more research is required to rigorously validate models and address risks. This review provides key insights for both computer scientists and clinicians, summarizing progress and future directions for deep learning in medical image analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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