End-to-end reproducible AI pipelines in radiology using the cloud
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms hold the potential to revolutionize radiology. However, a significant portion of the published literature lacks transparency and reproducibility, which hampers sustained progress toward clinical translation. Although several reporting guidelines have been proposed, identifying practical means to address these issues remains challenging. Here, we show the potential of cloud-based infrastructure for implementing and sharing transparent and reproducible AI-based radiology pipelines. We demonstrate end-to-end reproducibility from retrieving cloud-hosted data, through data pre-processing, deep learning inference, and post-processing, to the analysis and reporting of the final results. We successfully implement two distinct use cases, starting from recent literature on AI-based biomarkers for cancer imaging. Using cloud-hosted data and computing, we confirm the findings of these studies and extend the validation to previously unseen data for one of the use cases. Furthermore, we provide the community with transparent and easy-to-extend examples of pipelines impactful for the broader oncology field. Our approach demonstrates the potential of cloud resources for implementing, sharing, and using reproducible and transparent AI pipelines, which can accelerate the translation into clinical solutions.
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 | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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".