Deep Learning in Image Classification: Evaluating VGG19's Performance on Complex Visual Data

Jiacheng Hu; Runyuan Bao; Tong Zhou; Weijie He; Yang Lin; Yanlin Xiang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Deep Learning in Image Classification: Evaluating VGG19's Performance on Complex Visual Data

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that VGG19 beats SVM, XGBoost, MLP, and ResNet50 on pneumonia X-ray classification, with 92% accuracy and 0.95 AUC.

desk verdict Routine VGG19 benchmark on pneumonia X-rays with an evaluation flaw that sinks the comparative claim: the headline numbers are identical to the best-validation optimizer row. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20345 v1 pith:UVXWDSXW submitted 2024-12-29 cs.CV cs.LG

Weijie He , Tong Zhou , Yanlin Xiang , Yang Lin , Jiacheng Hu , Runyuan Bao This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVcs.LG

keywords VGG19pneumoniaclassificationchestX-rayconvolutionalneuralnetworksdeeplearningtransfermodelcomparisonmedicalimage

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to establish that a standard deep convolutional network, VGG19, can classify pneumonia from chest X-rays more reliably than four alternative machine-learning and deep-learning models. On its reported results, VGG19 reaches 92% accuracy, 0.95 AUC, 0.90 F1, and 0.87 recall, beating support vector machines, XGBoost, a multilayer perceptron, and ResNet50 on every measured metric. The practical stake is that a simple, well-understood architecture with pre-trained weights could support automated pneumonia screening, provided the evaluation is as clean as the paper assumes.

What carries the argument

The machinery is VGG19, a 19-weight-layer convolutional neural network built from stacked convolutional and max-pooling layers followed by fully connected layers and a softmax output. The argument runs through this architecture's feature extraction: each convolution layer pulls edges, textures, and higher-level shapes from the X-ray, pooling reduces dimensionality, and the final layers map the feature vector to a pneumonia-or-normal decision, trained with cross-entropy loss and backpropagation.

What would settle it

Retrain all five models on the public chest X-ray dataset (5,863 images, not the roughly 50,000 the paper describes) with a documented train/validation/test split, identical preprocessing, and identical optimizer settings; if VGG19's 92% accuracy and 0.95 AUC do not beat ResNet50 on all four metrics, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that VGG19, a 19-weight-layer convolutional neural network, outperformed all four comparison models on the public Chest X-ray Images (Pneumonia) dataset, achieving 92% accuracy, 0.95 AUC, 0.90 F1, and 0.87 recall. The authors report that ResNet50 came closest but fell behind on recall and F1, while SVM, XGBoost, and MLP were weaker across the board. The paper also presents an optimizer ablation in which AdamW produced exactly the same top metrics as the main VGG19 result, leading the authors to attribute the outcome to the combination of VGG19's feature extraction and AdamW's adaptive learning rate with weight decay.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison collapses if the reported metrics did not come from a clean, held-out test set; the paper never states how the data were split, how many runs were averaged, or what hyperparameters the baseline models used.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reported ordering is correct, pneumonia screening from chest X-rays can be automated with an off-the-shelf deep network rather than hand-engineered features.
The results imply that conventional machine-learning classifiers, applied directly to images, are not competitive with deep convolutional networks on this task.
The optimizer ablation suggests that AdamW, not just the network architecture, is responsible for the top scores, since the best VGG19 row matches the AdamW row exactly.
ResNet50's lower recall and F1 would mean it misses more borderline pneumonia cases than VGG19 would under the paper's measurements.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the paper never states the train/validation/test split, the number of runs, or the baseline hyperparameters, the reported margin is best read as a demonstration of VGG19's potential rather than a proven ordering; a controlled re-run is the natural next check.
The paper describes the dataset as containing about 50,000 images, while the public release has roughly 5,863; that discrepancy matters because the reported metrics cannot be reproduced without knowing exactly which images and which split were used.
If the result holds after a cleaner evaluation, the practical takeaway is that disciplined evaluation may matter more than model choice: a standard CNN fine-tuned with AdamW could be enough for a deployable screening tool.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is a straightforward benchmark: VGG19, ResNet50, MLP, XGBoost, and SVM on the public Kaggle chest X-ray pneumonia dataset, with four metrics reported and an optimizer ablation. That structure is fine for a technical report, and the method section describes VGG19 competently. The writing is clear, and the citations to prior VGG19 pneumonia work are relevant. Credit is due for including several baselines and for reporting AUC, F1, and recall, not just accuracy.

The problem is that the load-bearing result is almost certainly an artifact of selection on the validation set. The VGG19 row in Table 1 (0.92 / 0.95 / 0.90 / 0.87) is numerically identical to the AdamW row in Table 2. That is not a coincidence; it means the "final" test metrics are the best-performing configuration from the optimizer ablation, reported without any indication that they came from a clean held-out test split. The paper never states how the data were partitioned, gives no repeated runs, no confidence intervals, and no baseline hyperparameter details. The baselines were not given the same tuning opportunity, so the 2–3 point gaps between VGG19 and ResNet50 could easily reflect tuning effort rather than architectural merit.

The dataset-size error is also real: the text claims about 50,000 images, but the public Kaggle dataset has 5,863. That is a factual mistake in the experimental description and further reduces confidence in the numbers. The novelty is minimal, since references [2] and [3] already apply VGG19 to the same task.

To be fair, the broad claim that VGG19 can classify pneumonia X-rays well is consistent with prior work and probably true. But the specific claim that VGG19 beats the other models on all metrics is not supported by the evidence as presented. The identical table values and missing protocol make the evaluation unverifiable, and I would not trust the comparison without a completely rewritten experimental section that includes a proper train/val/test split, repeated runs, and honest reporting of whether the reported numbers came from validation or test.

This is not worth a serious referee in its current form. It is the kind of paper that should be desk-rejected and sent back with a clear request for a rigorous evaluation, or allowed to die quietly. I would not cite it, and I would not bring it to reading group.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a comparison of five classifiers for pneumonia detection in chest X-ray images: SVM, XGBoost, MLP, ResNet50, and VGG19. Using what it describes as the public Kaggle 'Chest X-ray Images (Pneumonia)' dataset, it claims in the abstract and in Section IV-B that VGG19 achieves the best performance on all four reported metrics: accuracy 0.92, AUC 0.95, F1 score 0.90, and recall 0.87. The manuscript provides a standard description of VGG19's convolution, pooling, fully connected, and softmax layers, followed by an experimental section containing a results table, an optimizer ablation table, and a loss-curve figure. The paper's central conclusion is that deep convolutional networks, particularly VGG19, are superior to the compared baselines on this medical imaging task.

Significance. If the reported comparison were trustworthy, the result would be a modest, incremental confirmation of a widely held expectation: deep CNNs outperform classical machine-learning pipelines on chest X-ray classification. The paper's contribution is therefore not conceptual novelty but an empirical benchmark. However, the manuscript provides no code, no trained models, no data-splitting protocol, no repeated runs, and no confidence intervals, so the benchmark cannot be independently reproduced or statistically assessed. The numerical coincidence between the VGG19 row in Table 1 and the AdamW row in Table 2, combined with the incorrect dataset size in Section IV-A, casts direct doubt on the validity of the headline result. The paper's strength is limited to a clear description of the VGG19 architecture; it does not ship machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or falsifiable predictions beyond the reported point estimates.

major comments (3)

[Section IV-B, Tables 1 and 2] The load-bearing claim that VGG19 outperforms all baselines rests on metrics that are not shown to come from an independent test set. The paper never states how the data were partitioned into training, validation, and test sets, nor whether Table 1 reports performance on a held-out test split. More specifically, the VGG19 row in Table 1 (ACC 0.92, AUC 0.95, F1 0.90, recall 0.87) is numerically identical to the AdamW row in Table 2, yet the text does not explain that AdamW was selected from the ablation and then evaluated on a separate test set. The reported numbers are therefore consistent with selecting the best optimizer on validation data and presenting that same selection as the model's headline performance, which invalidates the comparison because the baselines are not given equivalent tuning.
[Section IV-A] The dataset description is factually incorrect: the text states that the public Kaggle 'Chest X-ray Images (Pneumonia)' dataset contains about 50,000 images, but the commonly referenced version of this dataset contains 5,863 images. This is not a minor typo; it changes the scale of the experiment and prevents readers from reconstructing the training conditions. The authors should state the exact number of images, the number of patients, the class balance, and the official split (if the standard train/val/test split was used) or report their own split explicitly.
[Section IV] The experimental protocol is too underspecified to support the central comparison. No random seed, no data-augmentation details, no preprocessing parameters (beyond 'scaled, cropped, and normalized'), no optimizer settings for the baselines, no learning-rate schedule for models other than VGG19, and no repeated runs or confidence intervals are reported. Without this information, the two-to-five percentage point gaps between VGG19 and the baselines in Table 1 cannot be distinguished from tuning artifacts or noise. The authors should report the exact protocol for every model, including hyperparameter search ranges and the selected configurations.

minor comments (4)

[Section III, equations] The convolution formula uses the symbol 'E' to denote convolution, but the surrounding text and standard notation imply that '*' or '\ast' is intended; this should be corrected for readability.
[Section III, pooling formula] The pooling equation reuses the notation I_l_pool for both the input feature map and the output, making the formula ambiguous. Please use distinct symbols for the input and output of the pooling operation.
[Figure 2] Figure 2 is described as showing training and validation loss versus epoch, but the axis labels and legend are not legible in the manuscript; please provide a high-resolution figure with clearly labeled axes and a caption that states which optimizer's curves are shown.
[References] Several references are to arXiv preprints and appear only loosely related to the specific claims in the text; for claims about pneumonia classification, please cite peer-reviewed sources where available.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

VGG19's Table 1 headline result is numerically identical to the best-optimizer row (AdamW) in Table 2, so the claimed best performance appears to be the selected ablation maximum rather than an independent held-out prediction.

fitted input called prediction [Section IV-B, Tables 1 and 2 (Experimental Results and Ablation Experimental Results)]
"VGG19 demonstrated the best performance across all evaluation metrics, including accuracy (92%), AUC (0.95), F1 score (0.90), and recall (0.87) ... Table 2 highlights the performance of various optimizers during model training, with AdamW achieving the best results across all metrics, including accuracy (0.92), AUC (0.95), F1 score (0.90), and recall (0.87)."

The VGG19 row in Table 1 (ACC 0.92, AUC 0.95, F1 0.90, recall 0.87) is identical to the AdamW row in Table 2. The paper states that AdamW achieved the best results across all metrics, meaning the optimizer was selected using these same four metrics. Because no train/validation/test split is described and the baseline models are not reported with the same optimizer tuning, the headline claim that VGG19 is best is consistent with reporting the best-performing configuration from an ablation as the model's final result. The reported margin over SVM, XGBoost, MLP, and ResNet50 is therefore not an independent held-out prediction; it is the selected maximum over optimizer configurations, so the comparison is forced by the selection rather than demonstrated.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical comparison rather than a mathematical derivation, so the only serious circularity risk is in the evaluation loop. The strongest evidence is the numerical identity between the VGG19 row in Table 1 and the AdamW row in Table 2: both report ACC 0.92, AUC 0.95, F1 0.90, and recall 0.87, and the text explicitly identifies AdamW as the best optimizer on all these metrics. Since the paper never states how the data were split into training, validation, and test sets, the reported VGG19 result is indistinguishable from the selected-best ablation output, which makes the comparison to untuned baselines partially circular. I am not counting the many co-author self-citations as load-bearing: they are cited for general background on transfer learning, CNNs, and related classification tasks, not to justify the VGG19 superiority claim. The inaccurate statement that the Kaggle dataset contains about 50,000 images is a factual correctness concern, not a circularity concern. Overall, the central claim is not derived from an input, but its headline metric is suspect because it coincides with the best hyperparameter row; this is a partial circularity, not a fully forced one.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The reported ranking rests on an unstated and probably invalid evaluation protocol: no train/test split, no repeated runs, no baseline hyperparameters, and an optimizer chosen after seeing the test metrics. The dataset description (about 50,000 images) does not match the public Kaggle dataset (5,863 images). No new entities are introduced, and the only hand-chosen items are standard training hyperparameters plus the AdamW optimizer selection.

free parameters (3)

Optimizer choice = AdamW
Selected from Table 2 because it gave the best metrics; the headline VGG19 row in Table 1 is the AdamW result, so the final model is chosen on the evaluation data.
Learning rate schedule = 0.001, decay 10% every 20 epochs
Hand-chosen in Section IV-A with no sensitivity analysis; the reported results depend on this choice.
Preprocessing pipeline = scaled, cropped, normalized
Section IV-A lists preprocessing without exact parameters; any of many choices could change the numbers.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The Kaggle chest X-ray pneumonia dataset contains about 50,000 images as stated.
Section IV-A states about 50,000 images, but the public dataset contains 5,863; the assumption is false.
domain assumption The reported metrics come from a held-out test set with no patient leakage.
No train/validation/test split is described in Section IV, yet the comparison requires one.
domain assumption Dataset labels are correct and curated.
The study does not audit labels and trusts the public annotations for normal vs pneumonia.
domain assumption Pretrained ImageNet weights transfer to grayscale X-ray images after input conversion.
Section I claims transfer learning accelerates training and improves accuracy, but no experiment verifies this for X-rays.
domain assumption A single training run represents expected model performance.
The paper reports point estimates without repeated runs or seeds, assuming run-to-run variance is negligible.
domain assumption SVM, XGBoost, MLP, and ResNet50 were configured fairly.
No hyperparameters are given for baseline models, so the comparison is fair only under this unstated assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Learning in Image Classification: Evaluating VGG19's Performance on Complex Visual Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UVXWDSXW

@misc{pith2026241220345,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Learning in Image Classification: Evaluating VGG19's Performance on Complex Visual Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UVXWDSXW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20345}
}

read the original abstract

This study aims to explore the automatic classification method of pneumonia X-ray images based on VGG19 deep convolutional neural network, and evaluate its application effect in pneumonia diagnosis by comparing with classic models such as SVM, XGBoost, MLP, and ResNet50. The experimental results show that VGG19 performs well in multiple indicators such as accuracy (92%), AUC (0.95), F1 score (0.90) and recall rate (0.87), which is better than other comparison models, especially in image feature extraction and classification accuracy. Although ResNet50 performs well in some indicators, it is slightly inferior to VGG19 in recall rate and F1 score. Traditional machine learning models SVM and XGBoost are obviously limited in image classification tasks, especially in complex medical image analysis tasks, and their performance is relatively mediocre. The research results show that deep learning, especially convolutional neural networks, have significant advantages in medical image classification tasks, especially in pneumonia X-ray image analysis, and can provide efficient and accurate automatic diagnosis support. This research provides strong technical support for the early detection of pneumonia and the development of automated diagnosis systems and also lays the foundation for further promoting the application and development of automated medical image processing technology.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Multi-Scale Transformer Architecture for Accurate Medical Image Classification
cs.CV 2025-02 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

A Transformer with a loosely defined multi-scale attention weighting is reported to achieve 89.5% accuracy on ISIC 2017 skin lesion classification.
Optimized Unet with Attention Mechanism for Multi-Scale Semantic Segmentation
cs.CV 2025-02 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

An attention-augmented Unet reportedly reaches 76.5% mIoU on Cityscapes, but without code or a vanilla-Unet comparison the result is unverified.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[2]

A deep learning model for early prediction of pneumonia using VGG19 and neural networks,

S. Sharma and K. Guleria, "A deep learning model for early prediction of pneumonia using VGG19 and neural networks," in Mobile Radio Communications and 5G Networks: Proceedings of Third MRCN 2022 , Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, pp. 597-612, 2023

work page 2022
[3]

Pneumonia classification using deep learning VGG19 model,

S. Phine, "Pneumonia classification using deep learning VGG19 model," Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE Conference on Computer Applications (ICCA), IEEE, pp. 67-71, 2023

work page 2023
[1]

A hybrid convolutional neural network model to detect COVID -19 and pneumonia using chest X -ray images,

H. Gupta, N. Bansal, S. Garg, et al., "A hybrid convolutional neural network model to detect COVID -19 and pneumonia using chest X -ray images," International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology , vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 39-52, 2023

work page 2023
[4]

Accurate Medical Named Entity Recognition Through Specialized NLP Models

J. Hu, R. Bao, Y. Lin, H. Zhang, and Y. Xiang, "Accurate Medical Named Entity Recognition Through Specialized NLP Models", arXiv preprint, arXiv:2412.08255, 2024

arXiv 2024
[5]

Artificial Intelligence- Driven Risk Assessment and Control in Financial Derivatives: Exploring Deep Learning and Ensemble Models

G. Huang, Z. Xu, Z. Lin, X. Guo, and M. Jiang, "Artificial Intelligence- Driven Risk Assessment and Control in Financial Derivatives: Exploring Deep Learning and Ensemble Models", Transactions on Computational and Scientific Methods, vol. 4, no. 12, 2024

work page 2024
[6]

LoRA -LiteE: A Computationally Efficient Framework for Chatbot Preference -Tuning,

Y. Yang, C. Tao, and X. Fan, "LoRA -LiteE: A Computationally Efficient Framework for Chatbot Preference -Tuning," arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09947, 2024

arXiv 2024
[7]

Optimizing Multi-Task Learning for Enhanced Performance in Large Language Models

Z. Qi, J. Chen, S. Wang, B. Liu, H. Zheng, and C. Wang, "Optimizing Multi-Task Learning for Enhanced Performance in Large Language Models", arXiv preprint, arXiv:2412.06249, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[8]

Adaptive Optimization for Enhanced Efficiency in Large-Scale Language Model Training

J. Chen, B. Liu, X. Liao, J. Gao, H. Zheng, and Y. Li, "Adaptive Optimization for Enhanced Efficiency in Large -Scale Language Model Training", arXiv preprint, arXiv:2412.04718, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 28 references

[9]

Graph Neural Network-Based Entity Extraction and Relationship Reasoning in Complex Knowledge Graphs

J. Du, G. Liu, J. Gao, X. Liao, J. Hu, and L. Wu, "Graph Neural Network-Based Entity Extraction and Relationship Reasoning in Complex Knowledge Graphs", arXiv preprint, arXiv:2411.15195, 2024

2024 arXiv
[10]

Self -Supervised Credit Scoring with Masked Autoencoders: Addressing Data Gaps and Noise Robustly

Y. Yao, "Self -Supervised Credit Scoring with Masked Autoencoders: Addressing Data Gaps and Noise Robustly", Journal of Computer Technology and Software, vol. 3, no. 8, 2024

2024
[11]

Dynamic Risk Control and Asset Allocation Using Q -Learning in Financial Markets

M. Jiang, Z. Xu, and Z. Lin, "Dynamic Risk Control and Asset Allocation Using Q -Learning in Financial Markets", Transactions on Computational and Scientific Methods, vol. 4, no. 12, 2024

2024
[12]

Advanced Risk Prediction and Stability Assessment of Banks Using Time Series Transformer Models

W. Sun, Z. Xu, W. Zhang, K. Ma, Y. Wu, and M. Sun, "Advanced Risk Prediction and Stability Assessment of Banks Using Time Series Transformer Models", arXiv preprint, arXiv:2412.03606, 2024

2024 arXiv
[13]

Multi-Source Data-Driven LSTM Framework for Enhanced Stock Price Prediction and Volatility Analysis

Z. Xu, W. Zhang, Y. Sun, and Z. Lin, "Multi-Source Data-Driven LSTM Framework for Enhanced Stock Price Prediction and Volatility Analysis", Journal of Computer Technology and Software, vol. 3, no. 8, 2024

2024
[14]

Fully Convolutional Neural Networks for High -Precision Medical Image Analysis,

Z. Zheng, Y. Xiang, Y. Qi, Y. Lin, and H. Zhang, "Fully Convolutional Neural Networks for High -Precision Medical Image Analysis," Transactions on Computational and Scientific Methods, vol. 4, no. 12, 2024

2024
[15]

Convolutional neural network classification of cancer cytopathology images: taking breast cancer as an example,

M. Xiao, Y. Li, X. Yan, M. Gao, and W. Wang, "Convolutional neural network classification of cancer cytopathology images: taking breast cancer as an example," Proceedings of the 2024 7th International Conference on Machine Vision and Applications, pp. 145 –149, Singapore, Sing...

2024
[16]

Breast cancer image classification method based on deep transfer learning,

W. Wang, Y. Li, X. Yan, M. Xiao, and M. Gao, "Breast cancer image classification method based on deep transfer learning," Proceedings of the International Conference on Image Processing, Machine Learning and Pattern Recognition, pp. 190–197, 2024

2024
[17]

Scaling -up medical vision -and- language representation learning with federated learning,

S. Lu, Z. Liu, T. Liu, and W. Zhou, "Scaling -up medical vision -and- language representation learning with federated learning," Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 126, p. 107037, 2023

2023
[18]

Leveraging Semi-Supervised Learning to Enhance Data Mining for Image Classification under Limited Labeled Data,

A. Shen, M. Dai, J. Hu, Y. Liang, S. Wang, and J. Du, "Leveraging Semi-Supervised Learning to Enhance Data Mining for Image Classification under Limited Labeled Data," arXiv preprint, arXiv:2411.18622, 2024

2024 arXiv
[19]

Self -Supervised Learning in Deep Networks: A Pathway to Robust Few -Shot Classification,

Y. Xiao, "Self -Supervised Learning in Deep Networks: A Pathway to Robust Few -Shot Classification," arXiv preprint, arXiv:2411.12151, 2024

2024 arXiv
[20]

Comprehensive Evaluation of Multimodal AI Models in Medical Imaging Diagnosis: From Data Augmentation to Preference -Based Comparison,

C. Ruan, C. Huang, and Y. Yang, "Comprehensive Evaluation of Multimodal AI Models in Medical Imaging Diagnosis: From Data Augmentation to Preference -Based Comparison," arXiv preprint, arXiv:2412.05536, 2024

2024 arXiv
[21]

Survival prediction across diverse cancer types using neural networks,

X. Yan, W. Wang, M. Xiao, Y. Li, and M. Gao, "Survival prediction across diverse cancer types using neural networks," Proceedings of the 2024 7th International Conference on Machine Vision and Applications, pp. 134–138, 2024

2024
[22]

Optimizing Gesture Recognition for Seamless UI Interaction Using Convolutional Neural Networks,

Q. Sun, T. Zhang, S. Gao, L. Yang, and F. Shao, "Optimizing Gesture Recognition for Seamless UI Interaction Using Convolutional Neural Networks," arXiv preprint, arXiv:2411.15598, 2024

2024 arXiv
[23]

Comparison of Tree -Based Feature Selection Algorithms on Biological Omics Dataset,

Z. Liu and J. Song, "Comparison of Tree -Based Feature Selection Algorithms on Biological Omics Dataset," Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Advances in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 165 - 169, November 2021

2021
[24]

Pneumonia detection using enhanced convolutional neural network model on chest X -ray images,

S. A. Aljawarneh and R. Al -Quraan, "Pneumonia detection using enhanced convolutional neural network model on chest X -ray images," Big Data, 2023

2023
[25]

Classification of pneumonia from chest X -ray images using support vector machine and convolutional neural network,

M. Mardianto, A. Yoani, S. Soewignjo, et al., "Classification of pneumonia from chest X -ray images using support vector machine and convolutional neural network," International Journal of Advanced Computer Science & Applications, vol. 15, no. 6, 2024

2024
[26]

Pneumonia detection in chest X -ray images using an optimized ensemble with XGBoost classifier,

M. El-Ghandour and M. I. Obayya, "Pneumonia detection in chest X -ray images using an optimized ensemble with XGBoost classifier," Multimedia Tools and Applications, pp. 1-31, 2024

2024
[27]

Enhanced pneumonia diagnosis using chest X- ray image features and multilayer perceptron and k -NN machine learning algorithms,

A. Çelik and S. Demirel, "Enhanced pneumonia diagnosis using chest X- ray image features and multilayer perceptron and k -NN machine learning algorithms," Traitement du Signal, vol. 40, no. 3, p. 1015, 2023

2023
[28]

Classification of pneumonia based on X -ray images with ResNet -50 architecture,

S. A. Rachman, D. C. Bagaskara, R. Magdalena, et al., "Classification of pneumonia based on X -ray images with ResNet -50 architecture," Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Electronics, Biomedical Engineering, and Health Informatics: ICEBEHI, 2022

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [2]

A deep learning model for early prediction of pneumonia using VGG19 and neural networks,

S. Sharma and K. Guleria, "A deep learning model for early prediction of pneumonia using VGG19 and neural networks," in Mobile Radio Communications and 5G Networks: Proceedings of Third MRCN 2022 , Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, pp. 597-612, 2023

work page 2022

[2] [3]

Pneumonia classification using deep learning VGG19 model,

S. Phine, "Pneumonia classification using deep learning VGG19 model," Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE Conference on Computer Applications (ICCA), IEEE, pp. 67-71, 2023

work page 2023

[3] [1]

A hybrid convolutional neural network model to detect COVID -19 and pneumonia using chest X -ray images,

H. Gupta, N. Bansal, S. Garg, et al., "A hybrid convolutional neural network model to detect COVID -19 and pneumonia using chest X -ray images," International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology , vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 39-52, 2023

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Accurate Medical Named Entity Recognition Through Specialized NLP Models

J. Hu, R. Bao, Y. Lin, H. Zhang, and Y. Xiang, "Accurate Medical Named Entity Recognition Through Specialized NLP Models", arXiv preprint, arXiv:2412.08255, 2024

arXiv 2024

[5] [5]

Artificial Intelligence- Driven Risk Assessment and Control in Financial Derivatives: Exploring Deep Learning and Ensemble Models

G. Huang, Z. Xu, Z. Lin, X. Guo, and M. Jiang, "Artificial Intelligence- Driven Risk Assessment and Control in Financial Derivatives: Exploring Deep Learning and Ensemble Models", Transactions on Computational and Scientific Methods, vol. 4, no. 12, 2024

work page 2024

[6] [6]

LoRA -LiteE: A Computationally Efficient Framework for Chatbot Preference -Tuning,

Y. Yang, C. Tao, and X. Fan, "LoRA -LiteE: A Computationally Efficient Framework for Chatbot Preference -Tuning," arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09947, 2024

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

Optimizing Multi-Task Learning for Enhanced Performance in Large Language Models

Z. Qi, J. Chen, S. Wang, B. Liu, H. Zheng, and C. Wang, "Optimizing Multi-Task Learning for Enhanced Performance in Large Language Models", arXiv preprint, arXiv:2412.06249, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

Adaptive Optimization for Enhanced Efficiency in Large-Scale Language Model Training

J. Chen, B. Liu, X. Liao, J. Gao, H. Zheng, and Y. Li, "Adaptive Optimization for Enhanced Efficiency in Large -Scale Language Model Training", arXiv preprint, arXiv:2412.04718, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024