Diagnostic performance of deep learning models versus radiologists in COVID-19 pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although several studies have compared the performance of deep learning (DL) models and radiologists for the diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia on CT of the chest, these results have not been collectively evaluated. We performed a meta-analysis of original articles comparing the performance of DL models versus radiologists in detecting COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on the three main medical literature databases, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, for articles published as of February 1st, 2023. We included original scientific articles that compared DL models trained to detect COVID-19 pneumonia on CT to radiologists. Meta-analysis was performed to determine DL versus radiologist performance in terms of model sensitivity and specificity, taking into account inter and intra-study heterogeneity. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles met the inclusion criteria. Based on the meta-analytic calculations, DL models had significantly higher pooled sensitivity (0.933 vs. 0.829, p < 0.001) compared to radiologists with similar pooled specificity (0.905 vs. 0.897, p = 0.746). In the differentiation of COVID-19 versus community-acquired pneumonia, the DL models had significantly higher sensitivity compared to radiologists (0.915 vs. 0.836, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: DL models have high performance for screening of COVID-19 pneumonia on chest CT, offering the possibility of these models for augmenting radiologists in clinical practice.
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 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".