Automatic Diagnosis of Lung Diseases (Pneumonia, Cancer) with given Reliabilities on the Basis of an Irradiation Images of Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article proposes algorithms for the automatic diagnosis of human lung diseases pneumonia and cancer, based on images obtained by radiation irradiation, which allow us to make decisions with the necessary reliability, that is, to restrict the probabilities of making possible errors to a pre-planned level. Since the information obtained from the observation is random, Wald’s sequential analysis method and Constrained Bayesian Method (CBM) of statistical hypothesis testing are used for making a decision, which allow us to restrict both types of possible errors. Both methods have been investigated using statistical simulation and real data, which fully confirmed the correctness of theoretical reasoning and the ability to make decisions with the required reliability using artificial intelligence. The advantage of CBM compared to Wald’s method is shown, which is expressed in the relative scarcity of observation results needed to make a decision with the same reliability. The possibility of implementing the proposed method in modern computerized X-ray equipment due to its simplicity and promptness of decision-making is also shown.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".