CGF-DETR: Cross-Gated Fusion DETR for Enhanced Pneumonia Detection in Chest X-rays

Ling Wu; Shan Wan; Yecheng Zhao; Yefeng Wu; Yuchen Song

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 22 references

CGF-DETR: Cross-Gated Fusion DETR for Enhanced Pneumonia Detection in Chest X-rays

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A modified real-time DETR detector, cross-gated with convolutional attention and multi-path fusion, improves pneumonia detection on chest X-rays to 82.2 mAP@0.5 — 3.7 points above its baseline — without slowing inference.

desk verdict Plausible incremental architecture, but the evaluation protocol is too vague to back the headline 3.7-point gain. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.01730 v2 pith:WEHLEEEG submitted 2025-11-03 cs.CV

Yefeng Wu , Yuchen Song , Ling Wu , Shan Wan , Yecheng Zhao This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords pneumoniadetectionchestX-rayreal-timeobjecttransformerdetectorgatedattentionstructuralre-parameterizationmulti-scalefeaturefusionDETR

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

This paper argues that a real-time transformer object detector can be adapted to pneumonia detection in chest X-rays by carefully placed architectural changes: a convolutional attention block with CSP structure in the backbone, a split-path gated single-head attention in the encoder, and a multi-path convolution fusion block with structural re-parameterization in the neck. On a public pneumonia detection benchmark, the resulting CGF-DETR improves detection accuracy by 3.7 mAP@0.5 over the baseline while keeping inference at 48 FPS. If the result holds, it would mean high-accuracy, real-time automated pneumonia triage is achievable without sacrificing speed, and that gating and re-parameterization tricks transfer from natural-image detection to medical imaging.

What carries the argument

The core mechanism is cross-gated fusion: SPGA splits features into a narrow attention branch and a wide bypass, uses single-head self-attention with a gating network that predicts a per-image top-k sparsity, and recombines via a 1×1 convolution; GCFC3 fuses multiple parallel convolution paths during training and algebraically merges them into a single 3×3 convolution at inference; XFABlock adds convolutional attention inside CSP units. Together these concentrate computation on informative interactions while preserving multi-scale detail and keeping real-time latency.

What would settle it

Train CGF-DETR and the baseline detector on an independent chest X-ray dataset (or a completely held-out split of the same data) and measure the mAP@0.5 difference; if the advantage shrinks materially below 3.7 points, the original gain was split-specific.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that by inserting three modules into the real-time transformer detector RT-DETR — a convolutional-attention block in the backbone, a split-path single-head gated attention in the encoder, and a multi-path convolution fusion block in the neck with structural re-parameterization — pneumonia lesion detection on chest X-rays improves from 78.5 to 82.2 mAP@0.5 and from 48.1 to 50.4 mAP@[0.5:0.95], while inference latency stays at about 20–21 ms (48.1 FPS). Ablations show each module adds +0.7 to +1.6 mAP@0.5, with the backbone block as the largest single contributor, and the full combination yields a slightly super-additive gain.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the unspecified 'standard data split' gives an unbiased test set; if the test set influenced module design, the 3.7-point gain may not transfer to new data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the result holds, real-time pneumonia screening could be automated with accuracy matching or exceeding slower detectors.
The structural re-parameterization means accuracy gains do not cost deployment speed, easing clinical integration.
The additive ablations indicate the three modules are complementary and could be plugged into other transformer detectors.
The reported recall of 83.3% and precision of 80.2% at 0.5 IoU suggest a clinically useful balance between missed detections and false alarms.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves the data split undefined; if module choices were tuned on the same test set, the reported gain may partly reflect selection on that split rather than a generalizable effect.
The gating mechanism that predicts per-image attention sparsity is a general idea that could apply to other transformer detectors or to adaptive-compute settings.
The +3.7 gain may depend on the specific lesion distribution in this benchmark; testing on other pneumonia chest X-ray datasets would reveal how well the modules transfer.

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 competent incremental architecture study on RT-DETR for pneumonia detection. The three modules are not conceptually new — XFABlock is CSP plus convolutional attention, SPGA is single-head attention with a learned sparsity gate, and GCFC3 is essentially a reparameterized RepC3 — but the specific combination is new, and the ablation story is coherent: each piece contributes positively, and the GCFC3 latency reduction is a nice touch.

The soft spot is the evaluation. Section IV-A says 'standard data split' without telling us what it is. The RSNA challenge test labels are not public, so the authors must have made their own partition. If the same partition was used to choose hyperparameters and module designs, the 3.7-point gain may reflect selection bias rather than generalizable improvement. There are also no error bars or multiple seeds; per-module gains of 0.7–1.6 mAP points are within seed-to-seed noise, so the additive story is suggestive, not proven. No code or data is released, which makes independent verification impossible.

There is a minor technical issue in Eq. (4): if the learned sparsity ratio makes k=0, the entire attention row becomes -inf and softmax is undefined. That is unlikely with typical initialization, but it is an edge case worth guarding, and the notation around TopK is a bit sloppy. The rest of the math is fine, and the architecture description is clear.

The paper does not make derived predictions; all results are empirical measurements, so there is no circularity beyond the standard practice of iterative architecture tuning on a fixed benchmark. The citation pattern looks honest — they cite YOLOv7 for RepC3, RT-DETR as the baseline, and related detection work.

Who is this for: readers working on RT-DETR variants or medical object detection who want to see one more set of tricks that work on RSNA. It deserves a serious referee — the work is coherent and the central claim is testable if the authors supply the split, code, and variance. But it should not be accepted in current form.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. CGF-DETR modifies RT-DETR-l with three modules for pneumonia detection in chest X-rays: XFABlock (convolutional attention in a CSP-style backbone), SPGA (gated single-head self-attention with dynamic sparsity in the encoder), and GCFC3 (multi-path convolution fusion with structural re-parameterization in the neck). On the RSNA Pneumonia Detection dataset, the paper reports 82.2% mAP@0.5 and 50.4% mAP@[0.5:0.95] at 48.1 FPS, exceeding RT-DETR-l by 3.7 points and 2.3 points, respectively. Ablations in Table II show that each module adds between +0.7 and +1.6 mAP@0.5, with the full combination giving the best result.

Significance. If the reported gains are reproducible, the paper would make a practically relevant contribution to real-time medical object detection. The three proposed modules are clearly motivated, structurally simple, and the ablations are internally consistent, suggesting that the architecture is coherent. However, the evaluation currently lacks the experimental detail and statistical rigor needed to support the headline claim. The core value of the paper depends entirely on the trustworthiness of the RSNA evaluation, which is currently undermined by an undefined data split and the absence of any variance reporting.

major comments (4)

[Section IV-A] The paper states 'We follow the standard data split' but does not define the composition of the training, validation, and test sets. The RSNA Kaggle challenge does not provide public labels for its official test set, so the authors must have created a custom partition; this partition must be described exactly (e.g., number of images per split, patient-level splitting, and how the official train files were divided). Without this information, the reported 82.2% mAP@0.5 is not reproducible, and the comparative numbers in Table I cannot be interpreted. Moreover, if the same test set was used to select module designs, hyperparameters, and the 72-epoch schedule, the 3.7-point gain over RT-DETR-l may partly reflect test-set overfitting.
[Tables I and II] No error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple-seed runs are reported. The individual module contributions in Table II are only +0.7 to +1.6 mAP@0.5, which is within the typical seed-to-seed variability of detection models. Claims that 'each proposed module contributes meaningfully' and that the 3.7-point gain is real require at least three independent runs with mean±std, or a significance test. This is load-bearing because the central claim is an empirical accuracy improvement.
[Section III-C, Eq. (4)] The top-k sparsity formulation can produce k=0 when N·σ(G(X)) < 1, which is possible for low values of the sigmoid and large N. In that case, for every b, b is not in the TopK set, so every entry of the row is -inf and the softmax is undefined (0/0). The paper must either clamp k to a minimum of 1 or define the masked attention distribution explicitly for the k=0 case. The TopK notation itself is also not formally defined; please specify the index set and how ties are handled.
[Section IV-B, Table I] The paper compares against Faster R-CNN, RetinaNet, YOLO variants, Deformable DETR, DINO, and RT-DETR-l, but it does not state whether these baselines were retrained under the same data split and training schedule or whether the numbers were taken from previous publications. If they are from other papers, the comparison is not apples-to-apples, particularly because the data split is undefined. The authors should clarify the provenance of every baseline number or report their own re-implementations.

minor comments (6)

[Eq. (4)] The expression 'TopK(Z(i)_a^T Z(ii), k)' has mismatched parentheses; also 'TopK' is used both as a set and as a function. Define the set of top-k indices clearly.
[Section III-C] The acronym 'SHSA' is used without definition. Also, the phrase '(optional) head index' is misleading in a single-head design; omit or clarify.
[Table II] The '✓+XFA' notation is confusing. Use separate XFA / SPGA / GCFC3 columns with checkmarks, or a simpler naming convention.
[Section III-B and Fig. 2] The text describes XFAUnit as containing XFABlock modules, but Fig. 2 is captioned 'Architecture of XFABlock.' Make the terminology consistent.
[References] Reference [13] contains a volume/page combination that looks unusual; verify the bibliographic details.
[General] The notation mAP@[0.5:0.95] should be consistent throughout; the abstract and Table I use slightly different forms (mAP@[0.5:0.95] vs. mAP@[.5:.95]).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all reported results are empirical benchmark measurements; no derivation reduces to its own inputs or to a self-citation chain.

full rationale

This is an empirical object-detection paper, not a theoretical derivation. The central claim—that CGF-DETR achieves 82.2% mAP@0.5 versus 78.5% for RT-DETR-l—is supported by direct measurements in Tables I and II on the RSNA dataset. The three proposed modules (XFABlock, SPGA, GCFC3) are defined by forward-computation equations (1)–(7); none of these equations is fitted to or derived from the reported mAP numbers. For example, the reparameterization formula (7) is the standard algebraic identity for fusing batch-normalized parallel convolutions, and the gating rule (3) is a learned model component, not an output of the evaluation. There are no self-citations that carry the argument: the paper builds on RT-DETR [22] and YOLOv7 [21] as external, reproducible baselines, and the ablation table is an empirical comparison. The only notable weakness is that Section IV-A says “We follow the standard data split for training, validation, and testing” without specifying the split's composition or provenance. That is a reproducibility/statistical-validity concern, not a circularity of the derivation: there is no step where a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction or where an equation reduces to the result it is supposed to establish. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim is an empirical performance improvement, supported by three newly proposed architectural modules that are evaluated on a single public benchmark. The paper introduces no physical entities, but the modules are new architectural inventions. The key input assumptions are the fidelity of the RSNA split, the meaningfulness of the evaluation metrics, the correctness of re-parameterization, the faithfulness of the baseline implementation, and the numerical stability of the top-k attention.

free parameters (4)

SPGA channel split ratio = X1=C/4, X2=3C/4
Hand-chosen architectural split; not ablated or justified in the paper.
GCFC3 parallel-path count M = unspecified
Paper says multiple parallel convolution paths but does not state the exact number or kernel configurations.
Top-k sparsity formula = k = floor(N*sigmoid(G(X)))
The sigmoid-gated sparsity is learned, but the floor operation and the scaling are ad hoc design choices without comparison to alternatives.
Training schedule = 72 epochs, lr 1e-4, batch 16, input 1024x1024
These hyperparameters are chosen by hand and not justified by ablations; they affect the reported numbers.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The RSNA dataset annotations and the 'standard data split' are correct and representative.
Section IV-A: 'We follow the standard data split for training, validation, and testing' without specifying what the split is.
domain assumption mAP@0.5 and mAP@[0.5:0.95] are meaningful proxies for pneumonia-detection quality.
Section IV uses these metrics as central evidence; their clinical relevance is not established.
standard math Structural re-parameterization exactly preserves the trained model's output.
Equation (7) assumes algebraic equivalence of multi-branch and fused convolutions; this is a known result from prior work, but the paper relies on it without proof.
domain assumption The PyTorch re-implementation of RT-DETR-l is faithful to the original.
Section IV-A says 'following the RT-DETR-l configuration' but no code or benchmark against published RT-DETR numbers is provided.
domain assumption Softmax over all -inf entries is well-defined.
Equation (4) can produce a row of -infinities if k=0; the paper does not specify a numerical floor or masking strategy.

invented entities (3)

XFABlock
purpose: Cross-fuse attention block for multi-scale feature extraction in the backbone, combining convolutional attention with CSP architecture.
New module introduced in this paper; only evaluated on the RSNA benchmark within the same paper, no external validation.
SPGA
purpose: Split-path gated attention replacing multi-head attention with single-head self-attention and dynamic sparsity.
New module introduced here; only tested on the RSNA dataset, no independent confirmation.
GCFC3
purpose: Generalized convolution fusion block for the neck, using multi-path convolution with structural re-parameterization.
New module introduced here; similar to RepC3 from YOLOv7 but adapted; only validated on RSNA.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CGF-DETR: Cross-Gated Fusion DETR for Enhanced Pneumonia Detection in Chest X-rays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WEHLEEEG

@misc{pith2026251101730,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CGF-DETR: Cross-Gated Fusion DETR for Enhanced Pneumonia Detection in Chest X-rays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WEHLEEEG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.01730}
}

read the original abstract

Pneumonia remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, necessitating accurate and efficient automated detection systems. While recent transformer-based detectors like RT-DETR have shown promise in object detection tasks, their application to medical imaging, particularly pneumonia detection in chest X-rays, remains underexplored. This paper presents CGF-DETR, an enhanced real-time detection transformer specifically designed for pneumonia detection. We introduce XFABlock in the backbone to improve multi-scale feature extraction through convolutional attention mechanisms integrated with CSP architecture. To achieve efficient feature aggregation, we propose SPGA module that replaces standard multi-head attention with dynamic gating mechanisms and single-head self-attention. Additionally, GCFC3 is designed for the neck to enhance feature representation through multi-path convolution fusion while maintaining real-time performance via structural re-parameterization. Extensive experiments on the RSNA Pneumonia Detection dataset demonstrate that CGF-DETR achieves 82.2% mAP@0.5, outperforming the baseline RT-DETR-l by 3.7% while maintaining comparable inference speed at 48.1 FPS. Our ablation studies confirm that each proposed module contributes meaningfully to the overall performance improvement, with the complete model achieving 50.4% mAP@[0.5:0.95]

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.01730 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Overall architecture of CGF-DETR. The backbone integrates XFABlock, the encoder leverages SPGA, the neck adopts GCFC3, and detection heads [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Architecture of XFABlock. XFABlocks apply convolutional attention [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** SPGA module. A narrow branch applies single-head attention with dynamic sparsity while a wide bypass preserves high-frequency information before [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: GCFC3 module architecture. During training, multiple parallel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Visualization comparison between CGF-DETR and RT-DETR. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references

[1]

A classical–quantum convolu- tional neural network for detecting pneumonia from chest radiographs,

V . Kulkarni, S. Pawale, and A. Kharat, “A classical–quantum convolu- tional neural network for detecting pneumonia from chest radiographs,” Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 35, pp. 15 503–15 510, 2023

2023
[2]

AI-based radiodiagnosis using chest x-rays: A review,

Y . Akhter, R. Singh, and M. Vatsa, “AI-based radiodiagnosis using chest x-rays: A review,”Frontiers in Big Data, vol. 6, p. 1120989, 2023

2023
[3]

A systematic literature review on deep learning approaches for pneumonia detection using chest x-ray images,

S. Sharma and K. Guleria, “A systematic literature review on deep learning approaches for pneumonia detection using chest x-ray images,” Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 83, pp. 24 101–24 151, 2024

2024
[4]

Deep learning approaches for chest radiograph interpretation: A systematic review,

H. Iqbal, A. Khan, N. Nepal, F. Khan, and Y .-K. Moon, “Deep learning approaches for chest radiograph interpretation: A systematic review,” Electronics, vol. 13, no. 23, p. 4688, 2024

2024
[5]

End-to-end object detection with transformers,

N. Carion, F. Massa, G. Synnaeve, N. Usunier, A. Kirillov, and S. Zagoruyko, “End-to-end object detection with transformers,” in European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV). Springer, 2020, pp. 213–229

2020
[6]

Pneumonia detection using chest radiographs with novel efficientnetv2l model,

M. Ali, M. Shahroz, U. Akram, M. F. Mushtaq, S. C. Altamiranda, S. A. Obregonet al., “Pneumonia detection using chest radiographs with novel efficientnetv2l model,”IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 34 691–34 707, 2024

2024
[7]

Customized vgg19 architecture for pneumonia detection in chest x- rays,

N. Dey, Y . Zhang, V . Rajinikanth, R. Pugalenthi, and N. S. M. Raja, “Customized vgg19 architecture for pneumonia detection in chest x- rays,”Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 143, pp. 67–74, 2021

2021
[8]

Pneumonia detection on chest x-ray images using ensemble of deep convolutional neural networks,

A. Mabrouk, R. P. D ´ıaz Redondo, A. Dahou, M. Abd Elaziz, and M. Kayed, “Pneumonia detection on chest x-ray images using ensemble of deep convolutional neural networks,”Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 13, p. 6448, 2022

2022

Show all 22 references

[9]

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
[10]

Grad-CAM: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization,

R. R. Selvaraju, M. Cogswell, A. Das, R. Vedantam, D. Parikh, and D. Batra, “Grad-CAM: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization,” inProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2017, pp. 618–626

2017
[11]

Score-CAM: Score-weighted visual explanations for convolu- tional neural networks,

H. Wang, Z. Wang, M. Du, F. Yang, Z. Zhang, S. Ding, P. Mardziel, and X. Hu, “Score-CAM: Score-weighted visual explanations for convolu- tional neural networks,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), 2020, pp. 24–25

2020
[12]

A deep learning method for pneumonia detection based on fuzzy non-maximum suppression,

H. Wu, H. Lu, M. Ping, W. Zhu, and Z. Li, “A deep learning method for pneumonia detection based on fuzzy non-maximum suppression,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 902–911, 2024

2024
[13]

Diagnosis of pneumonia from chest x-ray images using YOLO deep learning,

Y . Xie, B. Zhu, Y . Jiang, B. Zhao, and H. Yu, “Diagnosis of pneumonia from chest x-ray images using YOLO deep learning,”Frontiers in Neurorobotics, vol. 19, p. 1576438, 2025

2025
[14]

Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks,

S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick, and J. Sun, “Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), vol. 28, 2015, pp. 91–99

2015
[15]

Focal loss for dense object detection,

T.-Y . Lin, P. Goyal, R. Girshick, K. He, P. Doll ´ar, and S. Belongie, “Focal loss for dense object detection,” inProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2017, pp. 2980– 2988

2017
[16]

YOLOv1 to YOLOv10: The fastest and most accurate real-time object detection systems,

C.-Y . Wang and H.-Y . M. Liao, “YOLOv1 to YOLOv10: The fastest and most accurate real-time object detection systems,”APSIPA Transactions on Signal and Information Processing, vol. 13, no. 1, p. e29, 2024

2024
[17]

FCOS: Fully convolutional one- stage object detection,

Z. Tian, C. Shen, H. Chen, and T. He, “FCOS: Fully convolutional one- stage object detection,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2019, pp. 9627–9636

2019
[18]

CenterNet: Keypoint triplets for object detection,

K. Duan, S. Bai, L. Xie, H. Qi, Q. Huang, and Q. Tian, “CenterNet: Keypoint triplets for object detection,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2019, pp. 6568– 6577

2019
[19]

A survey of modern deep learning based object detection models,

S. S. A. Zaidi, M. S. Ansari, A. Aslam, N. Kanwal, M. Asghar, and B. Lee, “A survey of modern deep learning based object detection models,”Digital Signal Processing, vol. 126, p. 103514, 2022

2022
[20]

ERF- RTMDet: An improved small object detection method in remote sensing images,

S. Liu, H. Zou, Y . Huang, X. Cao, S. He, M. Li, and Y . Zhang, “ERF- RTMDet: An improved small object detection method in remote sensing images,”Remote Sensing, vol. 15, no. 23, p. 5575, 2023

2023
[21]

YOLOv7: Trainable bag-of-freebies sets new state-of-the-art for real-time object detectors,

C.-Y . Wang, A. Bochkovskiy, and H.-Y . M. Liao, “YOLOv7: Trainable bag-of-freebies sets new state-of-the-art for real-time object detectors,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023

2023
[22]

DETRs beat YOLOs on real-time object detection,

Y . Zhao, W. Lv, S. Xu, J. Wei, G. Wang, Q. Dang, Y . Liu, and J. Chen, “DETRs beat YOLOs on real-time object detection,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024, pp. 16 965–16 974

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A classical–quantum convolu- tional neural network for detecting pneumonia from chest radiographs,

V . Kulkarni, S. Pawale, and A. Kharat, “A classical–quantum convolu- tional neural network for detecting pneumonia from chest radiographs,” Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 35, pp. 15 503–15 510, 2023

2023

[2] [2]

AI-based radiodiagnosis using chest x-rays: A review,

Y . Akhter, R. Singh, and M. Vatsa, “AI-based radiodiagnosis using chest x-rays: A review,”Frontiers in Big Data, vol. 6, p. 1120989, 2023

2023

[3] [3]

A systematic literature review on deep learning approaches for pneumonia detection using chest x-ray images,

S. Sharma and K. Guleria, “A systematic literature review on deep learning approaches for pneumonia detection using chest x-ray images,” Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 83, pp. 24 101–24 151, 2024

2024

[4] [4]

Deep learning approaches for chest radiograph interpretation: A systematic review,

H. Iqbal, A. Khan, N. Nepal, F. Khan, and Y .-K. Moon, “Deep learning approaches for chest radiograph interpretation: A systematic review,” Electronics, vol. 13, no. 23, p. 4688, 2024

2024

[5] [5]

End-to-end object detection with transformers,

N. Carion, F. Massa, G. Synnaeve, N. Usunier, A. Kirillov, and S. Zagoruyko, “End-to-end object detection with transformers,” in European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV). Springer, 2020, pp. 213–229

2020

[6] [6]

Pneumonia detection using chest radiographs with novel efficientnetv2l model,

M. Ali, M. Shahroz, U. Akram, M. F. Mushtaq, S. C. Altamiranda, S. A. Obregonet al., “Pneumonia detection using chest radiographs with novel efficientnetv2l model,”IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 34 691–34 707, 2024

2024

[7] [7]

Customized vgg19 architecture for pneumonia detection in chest x- rays,

N. Dey, Y . Zhang, V . Rajinikanth, R. Pugalenthi, and N. S. M. Raja, “Customized vgg19 architecture for pneumonia detection in chest x- rays,”Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 143, pp. 67–74, 2021

2021

[8] [8]

Pneumonia detection on chest x-ray images using ensemble of deep convolutional neural networks,

A. Mabrouk, R. P. D ´ıaz Redondo, A. Dahou, M. Abd Elaziz, and M. Kayed, “Pneumonia detection on chest x-ray images using ensemble of deep convolutional neural networks,”Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 13, p. 6448, 2022

2022