pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.09354 · v1 · pith:4PZWVU7Jnew · submitted 2019-06-21 · 📡 eess.IV · cs.CV

Boosting the rule-out accuracy of deep disease detection using class weight modifiers

Alexandros Karargyris , Ken C. L. Wong , Joy T. Wu , Mehdi Moradi , Tanveer Syeda-Mahmood This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 18:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.IV cs.CV
keywords class weight modifiersdeep neural networkschest X-raysnegated findingslabel ambiguitydisease detectionrule-out accuracy
0
0 comments X

The pith

Class weight modifiers for no-mention cases boost rule-out accuracy in chest X-ray disease classifiers

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

The paper proposes applying class weight modifiers to the loss function specifically for cases where a finding is not mentioned in clinical notes. This targets the ambiguity where lack of mention does not reliably indicate absence of disease, which hurts performance on negated findings. Experiments with two deep network architectures on over 200,000 chest X-ray images for three diseases show large gains in classifier performance, especially for negated cases. Both a custom dilated block network and DenseNet-201 improve with the scheme, and the dilated network also beats DenseNet-201 as a baseline. A sympathetic reader would care because better rule-out reduces false positives in screening workflows.

Core claim

We propose a scheme to apply reasonable class weight modifiers to our loss function for the no mention cases during training. We experiment with two different deep neural network architectures and show that the proposed method results in a large improvement in the performance of the classifiers, specially on negated findings. The baseline performance of a custom-made dilated block network proposed in this paper shows an improvement in comparison with baseline DenseNet-201, while both architectures benefit from the new proposed loss function weighting scheme.

What carries the argument

Class weight modifiers applied to the loss function for no-mention cases, compensating for label ambiguity in clinical notes.

If this is right

  • Both the custom dilated block network and DenseNet-201 show large gains from the weighting scheme.
  • Gains are especially pronounced on negated findings.
  • The dilated block network outperforms DenseNet-201 even without the weighting.
  • The approach targets screening applications where ruling out findings is the primary goal.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The method could extend to other label sources with similar negative ambiguity, such as pathology reports.
  • It raises the question of whether the same weighting logic applies when training on mixed positive and uncertain labels beyond radiology.
  • An automated search for the modifier values might replace manual selection while preserving the performance lift.

Load-bearing premise

Manually chosen class weight modifiers can compensate for no-mention label ambiguity without introducing new systematic bias.

What would settle it

Re-annotate a held-out set of no-mention cases with direct image review or follow-up clinical data, then measure whether the weighted model still outperforms the unweighted baseline on those cases.

read the original abstract

In many screening applications, the primary goal of a radiologist or assisting artificial intelligence is to rule out certain findings. The classifiers built for such applications are often trained on large datasets that derive labels from clinical notes written for patients. While the quality of the positive findings described in these notes is often reliable, lack of the mention of a finding does not always rule out the presence of it. This happens because radiologists comment on the patient in the context of the exam, for example focusing on trauma as opposed to chronic disease at emergency rooms. However, this disease finding ambiguity can affect the performance of algorithms. Hence it is critical to model the ambiguity during training. We propose a scheme to apply reasonable class weight modifiers to our loss function for the no mention cases during training. We experiment with two different deep neural network architectures and show that the proposed method results in a large improvement in the performance of the classifiers, specially on negated findings. The baseline performance of a custom-made dilated block network proposed in this paper shows an improvement in comparison with baseline DenseNet-201, while both architectures benefit from the new proposed loss function weighting scheme. Over 200,000 chest X-ray images and three highly common diseases, along with their negated counterparts, are included in this study.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper claims that manually applying 'reasonable' class weight modifiers to the loss function for 'no mention' cases during training of deep neural networks can compensate for label ambiguity arising from clinical notes in chest X-ray datasets. This is said to yield large performance gains, especially on negated findings. Experiments use a custom dilated-block network and DenseNet-201 on >200k images across three common diseases and their negations; the custom network also outperforms DenseNet-201 at baseline.

Significance. If the reported gains prove robust under proper validation, the method could improve rule-out performance in screening applications by explicitly modeling the ambiguity of absent mentions in radiology reports. The empirical loss-adjustment approach is straightforward and could be adopted in other noisy-label medical imaging settings, but its practical value depends on demonstrating that the gains are not artifacts of the particular scalar choices.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion of a 'large improvement in the performance of the classifiers, specially on negated findings' supplies no quantitative metrics, error bars, statistical tests, baseline comparisons, or description of how the specific weight values were selected, so the data-to-claim link cannot be evaluated.
  2. [Proposed scheme] Proposed scheme (class weight modifiers for no-mention cases): the modifiers are described only as 'reasonable' with no objective selection procedure, cross-validation, sensitivity analysis, or external signal for choosing their values. Because the true prevalence of findings in no-mention cases is unknown by construction, any held-out improvement could be an artifact of the chosen scalars rather than a principled correction; this is load-bearing for the central claim.
  3. [Experiments] Experimental setup: no details are provided on train/validation/test splits, how the three diseases were selected, or the precise definition of 'negated findings' labels, all of which are required to assess whether the gains generalize beyond the specific datasets and manual choices.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments that identify opportunities to strengthen the clarity and rigor of our claims. We address each major point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional details, metrics, and analyses where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion of a 'large improvement in the performance of the classifiers, specially on negated findings' supplies no quantitative metrics, error bars, statistical tests, baseline comparisons, or description of how the specific weight values were selected, so the data-to-claim link cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract should be more quantitative. In revision we will expand it to report specific AUC improvements (with standard deviations where computed), reference the DenseNet-201 baseline, and briefly note that weight values were selected via empirical validation-set tuning. This directly links the data to the claim. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Proposed scheme] Proposed scheme (class weight modifiers for no-mention cases): the modifiers are described only as 'reasonable' with no objective selection procedure, cross-validation, sensitivity analysis, or external signal for choosing their values. Because the true prevalence of findings in no-mention cases is unknown by construction, any held-out improvement could be an artifact of the chosen scalars rather than a principled correction; this is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: The modifiers were chosen empirically to maximize rule-out performance on a held-out validation set. We acknowledge the absence of a formal selection procedure or sensitivity study. In the revision we will add a sensitivity analysis across a range of modifier values, demonstrating that performance gains remain stable and are not artifacts of the particular scalars chosen. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Experiments] Experimental setup: no details are provided on train/validation/test splits, how the three diseases were selected, or the precise definition of 'negated findings' labels, all of which are required to assess whether the gains generalize beyond the specific datasets and manual choices.

    Authors: These details appear in the Methods section of the full manuscript (patient-level 70/15/15 splits, selection of three common findings—pneumonia, cardiomegaly, effusion—and negation labels obtained via rule-based NLP on the reports). We will revise to highlight them more prominently and supply any additional implementation specifics requested. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical loss weighting validated on held-out data

full rationale

The paper proposes a heuristic scheme for applying manually chosen class weight modifiers to the loss on no-mention cases and reports empirical gains on held-out test sets for two architectures (custom dilated network and DenseNet-201). No derivation chain, equations, or first-principles results are claimed; performance improvements are measured directly against baselines on external data rather than reducing to fitted inputs or self-citations by construction. The method is therefore self-contained as an experimental adjustment without circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that clinical notes produce systematically ambiguous negative labels and that ad-hoc class weight modifiers can compensate for this ambiguity without external validation of the true labels.

free parameters (1)
  • class weight modifiers for no-mention cases
    Specific numerical values chosen to re-weight the loss on ambiguous negatives; values are not reported in the abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Absence of mention in a clinical note does not reliably indicate absence of disease
    Stated directly in the abstract as the source of label noise that the weighting scheme is designed to address.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5777 in / 1315 out tokens · 34599 ms · 2026-05-25T18:11:27.275079+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    c⃝2019 IEEE

    INTRODUCTION Chest X-rays (CXR) are one of the most commonly per- formed medical imaging exams as part of the initial diag- nostic workup and screening processes in various clinical THIS PAPER W AS ACCEPTED BY IEEE ISBI 2019. c⃝2019 IEEE. PERSONAL USE OF THIS MATERIAL IS PERMITTED. PER- MISSION FROM IEEE MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ALL OTHER USES, IN ANY CURRENT...

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    finding label was not mentioned in the report. In fact, because CXR is often used as a screening exam to rule out abnormal findings, a large number of sentences in most re- ports would specifically mention that some findings are not present (negated). An example would be no pneumothorax, pleural effusion and consolidation. Therefore, directly pre- dicting a n...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Boosting the rule-out accuracy of deep disease detection using class weight modifiers

    true negation: the finding label is not present but also clin- ically not important enough to specifically negate in report, or 2) false negative: the finding is present but the radiologist missed it or did not think it was clinically relevant enough to mention in that particular setting (e.g. reporting an irrele- vant chronic finding like shoulder arthritis ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1906

  4. [4]

    We achieved this by automatic text analysis of the reports accompanied by the MIMIC-CXR dataset [3]

    METHODS In order to build a deep neural network for producing findings necessary to compose a CXR report, we needed a very large number of labeled images. We achieved this by automatic text analysis of the reports accompanied by the MIMIC-CXR dataset [3]. In this paper, we mostly discuss the process of building the finding classifier and the novel loss funct...

    work page

  5. [5]

    50% ambiguous consolidation cases, 23% ambiguous pneumothorax cases, 66% ambiguous pulmonary edema cases)

    RESULTS Our first observation is that a large number of cases in MIMIC-CXR radiology reports contained ambiguous dis- ease findings (e.g. 50% ambiguous consolidation cases, 23% ambiguous pneumothorax cases, 66% ambiguous pulmonary edema cases). This shows the importance of modeling the ambiguity of labels during training. Dilated block network: The baseline...

    work page

  6. [6]

    ChestX-ray8: Hospital-scale chest X-ray database and benchmarks on weakly-supervised classi- fication and localization of common thorax diseases,

    X. Wang, Y . Peng, L. Lu, Z. Lu, M. Bagheri, and R. M. Summers, “ChestX-ray8: Hospital-scale chest X-ray database and benchmarks on weakly-supervised classi- fication and localization of common thorax diseases,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2017, pp. 2097–2106

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Textray: Mining clinical reports to gain a broad under- standing of chest x-rays,

    J. Laserson, C. D. Lantsman, M. Cohen-Sfady, I. Tamir, E. Goz, C. Brestel, S. Bar, M. Atar, and E. Elnekave, “Textray: Mining clinical reports to gain a broad under- standing of chest x-rays,” in MICCAI, 2018, pp. 553– 561

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    MIMIC-CXR-JPG, a large publicly available database of labeled chest radiographs

    A. E. W. Johnson, T. J. Pollard, S. J. Berkowitz, N. R. Greenbaum, M. P. Lungren, C.-y. Deng, R. G. Mark, and S. Horng, “MIMIC-CXR: A large pub- licly available database of labeled chest radiographs,” arXiv:1901.07042 [cs.CV], 2019

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1901

  9. [9]

    Chestx-ray8: Hospital-scale chest x-ray database and benchmarks on weakly-supervised classi- fication and localization of common thorax diseases,

    X. Wang, Y . Peng, L. Lu, Z. Lu, M. Bagheri, and R. M. Summers, “Chestx-ray8: Hospital-scale chest x-ray database and benchmarks on weakly-supervised classi- fication and localization of common thorax diseases,” in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017 IEEE Conference on. IEEE, 2017, pp. 3462–3471

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Preparing a collection of radiol- ogy examinations for distribution and retrieval,

    D. Demner-Fushman, M. D. Kohli, M. B. Rosenman, S. E. Shooshan, L. Rodriguez, S. Antani, G. R. Thoma, and C. J. McDonald, “Preparing a collection of radiol- ogy examinations for distribution and retrieval,”Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 304–310, 2015

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    The prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (plco) cancer screening trial of the national cancer in- stitute: history, organization, and status,

    J. K. Gohagan, P. C. Prorok, R. B. Hayes, and B.-S. Kramer, “The prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (plco) cancer screening trial of the national cancer in- stitute: history, organization, and status,” Controlled clinical trials, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 251S–272S, 2000

    work page 2000

  12. [12]

    Miss rate of lung cancer on the chest radiograph in clinical practice,

    L. G. Quekel, A. G. Kessels, R. Goei, and J. M. van Engelshoven, “Miss rate of lung cancer on the chest radiograph in clinical practice,” Chest, vol. 115, no. 3, pp. 720–724, 1999

    work page 1999

  13. [13]

    Pitfalls in chest radiographic interpretation: blind spots,

    P. M. de Groot, B. W. Carter, G. F. Abbott, and C. C. Wu, “Pitfalls in chest radiographic interpretation: blind spots,” in Seminars in roentgenology . Elsevier, 2015, vol. 50, pp. 197–209

    work page 2015

  14. [14]

    The prevalence and sig- nificance of missed scapular fractures in blunt chest trauma,

    R. Harris and J. Harris Jr, “The prevalence and sig- nificance of missed scapular fractures in blunt chest trauma,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 151, no. 4, pp. 747–750, 1988

    work page 1988

  15. [15]

    Spot the drug! an unsupervised pattern match- ing method to extract drug names from very large clini- cal corpora,

    A. Coden, D. Gruhl, N. Lewis, M. Tanenblatt, and J. Ter- diman, “Spot the drug! an unsupervised pattern match- ing method to extract drug names from very large clini- cal corpora,” in Healthcare Informatics, Imaging and Systems Biology (HISB), 2012 IEEE Second Interna- tional Conference on. IEEE, 2012, pp. 33–39

    work page 2012

  16. [16]

    Learn- ing the correlation between images and disease labels using ambiguous learning,

    T. Syeda-Mahmood, R. Kumar, and C. Compas, “Learn- ing the correlation between images and disease labels using ambiguous learning,” in International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer, 2015, pp. 185–193

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    Densely connected convolutional networks.,

    G. Huang, Z. Liu, L. Van Der Maaten, and K. Q. Wein- berger, “Densely connected convolutional networks.,” in CVPR, 2017, vol. 1, p. 3

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2016, pp. 770–778

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    Multi-Scale Context Aggregation by Dilated Convolutions

    F. Yu and V . Koltun, “Multi-scale context aggregation by dilated convolutions,” arXiv:1511.07122 [cs.CV] , 2015

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  20. [20]

    Identity mappings in deep residual networks,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Identity mappings in deep residual networks,” in European Conference on Computer Vision, 2016, vol. 9908 of LNCS, pp. 630– 645

    work page 2016

  21. [21]

    Efficient object localization using convolutional networks,

    J. Tompson, R. Goroshin, A. Jain, Y . LeCun, and C. Bre- gler, “Efficient object localization using convolutional networks,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2015, pp. 648–656

    work page 2015