MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396582907 · doi:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooae035

Development of a chest X-ray machine learning convolutional neural network model on a budget and using artificial intelligence explainability techniques to analyze patterns of machine learning inference

2024· article· en· W4396582907 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMIA Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 diagnosis using AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsInferenceArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMachine learningConvolutional neural networkRecallVisualizationArtificial neural networkContrast (vision)Precision and recallBase (topology)Deep learningPattern recognition (psychology)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Machine learning (ML) will have a large impact on medicine and accessibility is important. This study's model was used to explore various concepts including how varying features of a model impacted behavior. Materials and Methods: This study built an ML model that classified chest X-rays as normal or abnormal by using ResNet50 as a base with transfer learning. A contrast enhancement mechanism was implemented to improve performance. After training with a dataset of publicly available chest radiographs, performance metrics were determined with a test set. The ResNet50 base was substituted with deeper architectures (ResNet101/152) and visualization methods used to help determine patterns of inference. Results: Performance metrics were an accuracy of 79%, recall 69%, precision 96%, and area under the curve of 0.9023. Accuracy improved to 82% and recall to 74% with contrast enhancement. When visualization methods were applied and the ratio of pixels used for inference measured, deeper architectures resulted in the model using larger portions of the image for inference as compared to ResNet50. Discussion: The model performed on par with many existing models despite consumer-grade hardware and smaller datasets. Individual models vary thus a single model's explainability may not be generalizable. Therefore, this study varied architecture and studied patterns of inference. With deeper ResNet architectures, the machine used larger portions of the image to make decisions. Conclusion: An example using a custom model showed that AI (Artificial Intelligence) can be accessible on consumer-grade hardware, and it also demonstrated an example of studying themes of ML explainability by varying ResNet architectures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it