Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Fast-staged CNN Model for Accurate pulmonary diseases and Lung cancer detection

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-stage CNN pipeline reads chest X-rays for eight lung pathologies, reporting an average AUC of 0.888.

desk verdict The paper's headline AUC of 0.888 is actually a mean average precision from Table II, so the main comparison to prior ROC AUCs is invalid; the two-stage pipeline is reasonable but the evidence as reported does not support the claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11681 v1 pith:ZFCOSRHU submitted 2024-12-16 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Abdelbaki Souid , Mohamed Hamroun , Soufiene Ben Othman , Hedi Sakli , Naceur Abdelkarim This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV
keywords chestradiographypulmonarynoduledetectiontwo-stageCNNtransferlearningEfficientNetlungdiseaseclassificationmedicalimageanalysisAUCevaluation
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 sets out to show that a two-stage deep-learning pipeline can read frontal chest X-rays and separate normal from abnormal exams, then classify eight lung pathologies with enough accuracy to act as a second reader. The authors report an average AUC of 0.888 across the eight classes, an AUC of 0.835 for the nodule/mass class that is the main lung-cancer marker, and triage accuracy around 93 percent on a held-out split. The intended payoff is a practical triage tool that helps overworked or unavailable radiologists spot suspicious cases, especially lung nodules, without requiring a full expert review of every image.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the two-stage pipeline itself. Stage one uses an EfficientNetB0 feature extractor with a two-output head to triage each image as normal or abnormal, trained with contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization and a weighted cross-entropy loss that balances class frequencies. Stage two uses an EfficientNetB1 backbone with a transfer-learning block—zero-padding, a convolutional layer, global average pooling, conditional dropout, and a dense layer—that outputs probabilities for the eight pathology classes. Only images flagged abnormal in stage one pass to stage two, and the final Grad-CAM maps localize the region supporting each prediction.

What would settle it

Testing the eight-class model on chest X-rays collected from a hospital system and patient population entirely absent from the three training datasets, and comparing the Nodule/Mass AUC to the reported 0.835, would settle the generalization claim; a large drop would indicate the numbers depend on the specific public collections used.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a staged CNN design—an EfficientNetB0 triage model followed by an EfficientNetB1 eight-class classifier—outperforms earlier single-stage models on multi-pathology chest X-ray classification. On a test split drawn from three merged public collections, the pipeline achieves an average AUC of 0.888 for Atelectasis, Cardiomegaly, Consolidation, Nodule/Mass, Pleural thickening, Pneumothorax, Pulmonary fibrosis, and Pneumonia, with Nodule/Mass reaching an AUC of 0.835, sensitivity of 0.713, and specificity of 0.776. The authors argue that the geographic diversity of the training data supports generalization and that the two-stage design reduces the chance of skipping an abnormality, because the triage stage catches abnormal exams even when the fine-grained classifier is uncertain.

Load-bearing premise

The reported accuracy assumes the randomly held-out 10 percent test split is independent of the training images, so the AUC and sensitivity would transfer to new patients rather than reflecting artifacts shared within the same public datasets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A triage stage that clears clearly normal exams could reduce radiologist workload while routing abnormal exams to detailed classification.
  • The Nodule/Mass class with AUC 0.835 could be used as a screening prompt for lung-cancer follow-up, although the 0.713 sensitivity leaves many nodules undetected.
  • The weighted-loss and transfer-learning recipe could be reused for other imbalanced medical image tasks with few positive examples per class.
  • Grad-CAM localization gives clinicians a visual region of interest that supports or challenges the prediction, which is useful in a second-reader workflow.
  • Because the pipeline separates triage from fine classification, an exam is still flagged abnormal even when the eight-class head is wrong, reducing the chance of a missed finding.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper calls a held-out split of the same merged datasets "external validation"; a stricter test on images from an unseen hospital is needed to confirm the claimed generalization.
  • The average AUC comparison against the two baselines is not apples-to-apples because the class set, data sources, and label noise differ; a common test split would be required to establish the improvement.
  • The two-stage cascade suggests a natural extension to urgency scoring, using the triage probability as a confidence rank for reporting queues.
  • Because sensitivity is the bottleneck for nodule detection, adding more nodule-positive cases and tuning the loss toward recall, as the authors propose, is a direct testable route to raise the 0.713 figure.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-stage deep-learning pipeline for chest X-ray analysis: an EfficientNetB0 triage model separating normal from abnormal images, followed by an EfficientNetB1 model that classifies eight pulmonary pathology classes, with Nodule/Mass treated as a single class. The model is trained on a merged dataset drawn from ChestX-ray14, an OCT/Chest-X-ray set, and VinDr-CXR. The authors report a top accuracy of 77%, sensitivity 0.713, specificity 0.776, and an AUC of 0.888 for nodule classification during what they call external validation, and they claim improvements over prior work by Wang et al. and Baltruschat et al. on the basis of a per-class comparison table.

Significance. If the reported metrics were correctly computed and the comparison were like-for-like, a two-stage triage-plus-diagnosis system with an EfficientNet backbone trained on a geographically diverse dataset could be a practically useful second-opinion tool, particularly because the paper demonstrates an interpretability component via Grad-CAM. The dataset combination and the explicit focus on Nodule/Mass detection are also relevant to lung-cancer screening. However, the significance is heavily contingent on the validity of the headline numbers, and my reading indicates that several of those numbers are mislabeled or compared against incompatible quantities. The paper does not ship code, and the experimental protocol is described too loosely to reproduce the results, so the significance is currently not established.

major comments (5)
  1. [IV.B, Tables II and III] The comparison in Table III is invalid because the 'Proposed' column contains mean average precision values (mAP@0.5) from Table II, not ROC AUC values. Averaging the eight mAP@0.5 entries in Table II gives 0.888125, exactly the 'Average' listed in Table III, while the two cited baselines report ROC AUC. The abstract's claim of 'an AUC score of 0.888' is therefore a statement about mean average precision, not area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and the conclusion that the model 'brought improvements compared to others' work' is unsupported by the evidence as presented.
  2. [Abstract and IV.B] The headline metrics in the abstract and conclusion are mislabeled. 'Accuracy 77%, sensitivity 0.713, specificity 0.776' match the Nodule/Mass row of Table II, where P=0.771, R=0.713, and F1-score=0.776. In other words, precision, recall, and F1-score are reported as accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. These are distinct quantities, and the error affects the paper's central performance statement.
  3. [III.C and IV.A] The claim of 'external validation' is not supported by the methods. Section III.C describes only a random 70/20/10 split of the merged datasets for the eight-class model, and Section IV.A's reference to a '3000 external test set' appears to be the internal test split rather than an independent dataset acquired from a different source. No external hospital or separate publicly available test set is introduced anywhere in the paper. The generalization claim in the abstract and conclusion therefore rests on an evaluation protocol that is not described or performed.
  4. [III.C] The statement 'To reduce the classes dimension, a PCA was applied' is underspecified and problematic for a multi-label classification target. The paper does not state how many principal components were kept, how PCA was applied to labels (rather than features), or how the reduced representation was mapped to the eight pathology classes used by the second model. Without this information the preprocessing step is not reproducible, and it is unclear whether the class definitions used for training are the same as those used for evaluation.
  5. [III.D and IV.A] The paper does not specify whether the eight-class model is trained as a multi-label classifier or a single-label classifier. ChestX-ray14 images frequently contain multiple pathologies, and the model's final layer has eight output nodes, but there is no mention of a sigmoid versus softmax activation, a multi-label loss, or how images with multiple labels were handled in the merged dataset. This matters because the reported per-class precision, recall, and mAP values are ambiguous without this information, and the comparison to multi-label baselines is affected.
minor comments (6)
  1. [IV.A and Table I] The text states the triage model achieved '94% during training/validation and 93% on 3000 external test set', but Table I reports accuracy 0.937333; these numbers should be reconciled and the provenance of the 3000-image set clarified.
  2. [III.B and III.C] There are several typographical inconsistencies, including 'DCIOM' instead of DICOM, 'across-entropy loss' instead of cross-entropy loss, 'positive wight' and 'negative eight' instead of 'positive weight' and 'negative weight', and 'Condi-tional Dropout' instead of 'Conditional Dropout'.
  3. [Table III] The reference label for Wang et al. is inconsistent: the table cites '[23]' while the text and reference list use '[32]'; this should be corrected.
  4. [IV.B] The sentence 'the mass and Nodule, the had proven its efficiency to detect lung nodule/mass w' is incomplete and should be rewritten.
  5. [III.D] The hyperparameter description is incomplete: the learning rate is given as '0.1e-2' and the reduced value as '0.01e-3', which are redundant notations, and the dropout rates are not precisely specified; exact values would improve reproducibility.
  6. [General] Several figure and table references are out of order or mismatched (for example, the EfficientNet baseline is called 'table 1' in Section III.D, while Table I in the results is the triage model table); a full pass to align numbering is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the paper reports an empirical benchmark, and its metric-labeling inconsistencies are not circularity.

full rationale

This paper does not attempt a derivation from first principles; the central claim is an empirical benchmark on a held-out split of merged public chest X-ray datasets. No model parameter or reported metric is fitted to the test set: Section III.C describes a fixed 70/20/10 split, and the reported per-class metrics in Table II are computed from the trained models on the held-out 10%. The self-citations in the related-work section are illustrative examples and do not carry the argument. The principal quantitative claim, the average 0.888 in Table III, is on inspection the mean of the mAP@0.5 column in Table II rather than a ROC AUC, so the comparison with Wang et al. and Baltruschat et al. is apples-to-oranges; however, that is an evaluation-metric labeling problem, not circularity, because the value is not derived from the cited baselines. Similarly, the abstract's phrase 'external validation' is not supported by the random split described in Section III.C, but overclaimed generalization is not a circular derivation. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no central premise depends on the authors' prior work. The correct finding is therefore no significant circularity, with the evaluation-metric and external-validation concerns belonging to correctness risk rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. Its central claim rests on data-label reliability, a non-external test split, and hand-chosen hyperparameters.

free parameters (5)
  • Learning rate schedule = 0.1e-2 to 0.01e-3
    Set by hand with ReduceLROnPlateau; affects convergence but not directly fitted to test data.
  • Classification threshold = 0.5
    Examined to improve accuracy; threshold choice affects reported metrics.
  • Class weight ratio (w_p, w_n) = unspecified
    Equation (2) defines balancing condition but actual values are not reported; influences loss and predictions.
  • Fine-tuning epochs = 15 + 15
    Chosen by hand; stopping rule not specified.
  • Dropout rates = 0.3 (triage), 0.2 (8-class)
    Hand-chosen regularization.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Labels in ChestX-ray14, OTC, and VinDr-CXR are sufficiently accurate for supervised training and evaluation.
    No label noise analysis or expert verification is provided; text-mined labels are known to be noisy.
  • domain assumption The 70/20/10 split of the merged dataset is representative and independent, so test metrics estimate generalization.
    No external validation set is described; same-source split can overestimate performance.
  • domain assumption Image-level labels permit classification of the eight selected pathologies with a multi-label CNN.
    ChestX-ray14 labels are image-level, but some pathologies are localized; model may not learn true localization.
  • standard math Adam optimizer and categorical cross-entropy are appropriate for this multi-label problem.
    Common practice.
  • ad hoc to paper PCA applied to VinDr-CXR labels reduces class dimension without losing needed signal.
    PCA on class labels is unusual and not justified; may discard information.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast-staged CNN Model for Accurate pulmonary diseases and Lung cancer detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZFCOSRHU

@misc{pith2026241211681,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast-staged CNN Model for Accurate pulmonary diseases and Lung cancer detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZFCOSRHU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11681}
}
read the original abstract

Pulmonary pathologies are a significant global health concern, often leading to fatal outcomes if not diagnosed and treated promptly. Chest radiography serves as a primary diagnostic tool, but the availability of experienced radiologists remains limited. Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning, particularly in computer vision, offer promising solutions to address this challenge. This research evaluates a deep learning model designed to detect lung cancer, specifically pulmonary nodules, along with eight other lung pathologies, using chest radiographs. The study leverages diverse datasets comprising over 135,120 frontal chest radiographs to train a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN). A two-stage classification system, utilizing ensemble methods and transfer learning, is employed to first triage images into Normal or Abnormal categories and then identify specific pathologies, including lung nodules. The deep learning model achieves notable results in nodule classification, with a top-performing accuracy of 77%, a sensitivity of 0.713, a specificity of 0.776 during external validation, and an AUC score of 0.888. Despite these successes, some misclassifications were observed, primarily false negatives. In conclusion, the model demonstrates robust potential for generalization across diverse patient populations, attributed to the geographic diversity of the training dataset. Future work could focus on integrating ETL data distribution strategies and expanding the dataset with additional nodule-type samples to further enhance diagnostic accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11681 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Presented solution full architecture: Edge communication for data acquisition, model training, and model’s inferencing The model pipeline, as depicted in figure 1, is capable of processing both PACS data streams and individual samples. The first model within the pipeline examines the presence of abnormalities in the provided CXRs. In case abnormalities are identified, the second model is triggered for further analys… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Proposed model architecture and workflow: End to End pipeline, starting with the input where the data is injected either from a PACS system (in batches) or by samples, then the detection module where the two model receive the image, and we end up with prediction (in the decision strategy). B. Dataset presentation Training abnormality detection models or any deep learning models require a proper architecture and an i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. EfficientNet architecture: MBConv stands for Depthwise Conv, 1x1/ 3x3 defines the kernel size, BN is the batch norm, H, W, F means tensor shape (height, width, depth), and ×1/2/3/4 is the multiplier for the number of repeated layers. The EfficientNet is a very robust Convolutional Neural Network that focuses on scaling which a significant because scaling help improve model efficiency. EfficientNet uses Neural Archit… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: general abnormality detector architecture: Input 224x224x3, EfficientNet B0 weight pre-trained on ImageNet followed by Flatten layer, Dropout with 0,3 and 2 Dense layers with 128 and 256 and a classifier layer (Dense layer with 2 class). In order to create a classifier…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Accuracy Value in training/validation phase: blue curve train, orange curve validation. To further investigate the model performance, we calculate the confusion matric illustrated in the figure 6. The results of the classification were very acceptable, 246 images over …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under Curve for the EfficientNet B1: The Legend bottom right distinct each class with a color. The highest AUC value for pneumonia was 0.963, lowest Mass/Nodule is 0.835. B. Discussion Overall, Overall, the combination is very pro…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Gradient Class activation map applied on some of the test samples: image on the right: GT: Atelectasis, prediction; Atelectasis, second sample GT: Cardiomegaly prediction: cardiomegaly, prediction correct even if the probability is low. When applying the Gradient class…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Role of chest radiographs in early lung cancer detection,

    J. Kim and K. H. Kim, “Role of chest radiographs in early lung cancer detection,” Transl Lung Cancer Res , vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 522 – 531, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.21037/tlcr.2020.04.02

    work page doi:10.21037/tlcr.2020.04.02 2020

  2. [2]

    Chest X -ray Screening Improves Outcome in Lung Cancer,

    G. M. Strauss, R. E. Gleason, and D. J. Sugarbaker, “Chest X -ray Screening Improves Outcome in Lung Cancer,” Chest, vol. 107, no. 6, pp. 270S -279S, Jun. 1995, doi: 10.1378/chest.107.6_Supplement.270S

    work page doi:10.1378/chest.107.6_supplement.270s 1995

  3. [3]

    Chest X -ray screening for lung cancer: Overdiagnosis, endpoints, and randomized population trials: RPTs and CXR Screening for Lung Cancer,

    G. M. Strauss and L. Dominioni, “Chest X -ray screening for lung cancer: Overdiagnosis, endpoints, and randomized population trials: RPTs and CXR Screening for Lung Cancer,” J. Surg. Oncol. , vol. 108, no. 5, pp. 294–300, Oct. 2013, doi: 10.1002/jso.23396

    work page doi:10.1002/jso.23396 2013

  4. [4]

    An evaluation of chest X -ray screening for lung cancer in gunma prefecture, Japan,

    T. Nakayama, T. Baba, T. Suzuki, M. Sagawa, and M. Kaneko, “An evaluation of chest X -ray screening for lung cancer in gunma prefecture, Japan,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 1380–1387, Jul. 2002, doi: 10.1016/S0959-8049(02)00083-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s0959-8049(02)00083-7 2002

  5. [5]

    A novel pixel value space statistics map of the pulmonary nodule for classification in computerized tomography images,

    H. Jiang, H. Ma, W. Qian, G. Wei, X. Zhao, and M. Gao, “A novel pixel value space statistics map of the pulmonary nodule for classification in computerized tomography images,” in 2017 39th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Seogwipo: IEEE, Jul. 2017, pp. 556–559. doi: 10.1109/EMBC.2017.8036885

    work page arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    ResNet -50 for 12 -Lead Electrocardiogram Automated Diagnosis,

    N. Sakli et al. , “ResNet -50 for 12 -Lead Electrocardiogram Automated Diagnosis,” Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, vol. 2022, pp. 1 –16, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1155/2022/7617551

    work page doi:10.1155/2022/7617551 2022

  7. [8]

    Development and Validation of a Deep Learning Algorithm for Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy in Retinal Fundus Photographs,

    V. Gulshan et al., “Development and Validation of a Deep Learning Algorithm for Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy in Retinal Fundus Photographs,” JAMA, vol. 316, no. 22, p. 2402, Dec. 2016, doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.17216

    arXiv 2016

  8. [9]

    DL Methods for Skin Lesions Automated Diagnosis In Smartphone Images,

    M. Sakl, C. Essid, B. B. Salah, and H. Sakli, “DL Methods for Skin Lesions Automated Diagnosis In Smartphone Images,” in 2023 International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing (IWCMC), Marrakesh, Morocco: IEEE, Jun. 2023, pp. 1142 –1147. doi: 10.1109/IWCMC58020.2023.10183254

    arXiv 2023

Show all 36 references
  1. [10]

    Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer,

    B. Ehteshami Bejnordi et al. , “Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer,” JAMA, vol. 318, no. 22, p. 2199, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.14585

    2017

  2. [11]

    Computer -aided detection in chest radiography based on artificial intelligence: a survey,

    C. Qin, D. Yao, Y. Shi, and Z. Song, “Computer -aided detection in chest radiography based on artificial intelligence: a survey,” BioMed Eng OnLine, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 113, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.1186/s12938- 018-0544-y

    2018 doi

  3. [12]

    An Efficient Deep Learning-Based Skin Cancer Classifier for an Imbalanced Dataset,

    T. M. Alam et al., “An Efficient Deep Learning-Based Skin Cancer Classifier for an Imbalanced Dataset,” Diagnostics, vol. 12, no. 9, p. 2115, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12092115

    2022 doi

  4. [13]

    Deep Transfer Learning Approaches in Performance Analysis of Brain Tumor Classification Using MRI Images,

    C. Srinivas et al. , “Deep Transfer Learning Approaches in Performance Analysis of Brain Tumor Classification Using MRI Images,” Journal of Healthcare Engineering , vol. 2022, pp. 1 –17, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1155/2022/3264367

    2022 doi

  5. [14]

    Deep Ensemble Learning for the Automatic Detection of Pneumoconiosis in Coal Worker’s Chest X -ray Radiography,

    L. Devnath et al. , “Deep Ensemble Learning for the Automatic Detection of Pneumoconiosis in Coal Worker’s Chest X -ray Radiography,” JCM, vol. 11, no. 18, p. 5342, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.3390/jcm11185342

    2022 doi

  6. [15]

    Disease Diagnosis System Using IoT Empowered with Fuzzy Inference System,

    T. Mahboob Alam et al. , “Disease Diagnosis System Using IoT Empowered with Fuzzy Inference System,” Computers, Materials & Continua, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 5305 –5319, 2022, doi: 10.32604/cmc.2022.020344

    2022

  7. [16]

    Computer -Aided Diagnosis of Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis in Chest X -ray Radiographs Using Machine Learning: A Systematic Literature Review,

    L. Devnath et al. , “Computer -Aided Diagnosis of Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis in Chest X -ray Radiographs Using Machine Learning: A Systematic Literature Review,” IJERPH, vol. 19, no. 11, p. 6439, May 2022, doi: 10.3390/ijerph19116439

    2022 doi

  8. [17]

    Toward an Efficient Deep Learning Model for Lung pathologies Detection In X -ray Images,

    A. Souid, N. Sakli, and H. Sakli, “Toward an Efficient Deep Learning Model for Lung pathologies Detection In X -ray Images,” in 2022 International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing (IWCMC) , Dubrovnik, Croatia: IEEE, May 2022, pp. 1028–1033. doi: 10.1109/IWCMC55113....

    2022

  9. [18]

    Lung Cancer and Radiological Imaging,

    A. Panunzio and P. Sartori, “Lung Cancer and Radiological Imaging,” CRP, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 238 –242, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.2174/1874471013666200523161849

    2020 doi

  10. [19]

    Imaging patterns of early stage lung cancer for the thoracic surgeon,

    M. Migliore, S. Palmucci, M. Nardini, and A. Basile, “Imaging patterns of early stage lung cancer for the thoracic surgeon,” J Thorac Dis , vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 3349 –3356, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.21037/jtd.2020.02.61

    2020 doi

  11. [20]

    Deep learning-based detection system for multiclass lesions on chest radiographs: comparison with observer readings,

    S. Park et al., “Deep learning-based detection system for multiclass lesions on chest radiographs: comparison with observer readings,” Eur Radiol , vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 1359 –1368, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06532-x

    2020 doi

  12. [21]

    Validation of a Deep Learning Algorithm for the Detection of Malignant Pulmonary Nodules in Chest Radiographs,

    H. Yoo, K. H. Kim, R. Singh, S. R. Digumarthy, and M. K. Kalra, “Validation of a Deep Learning Algorithm for the Detection of Malignant Pulmonary Nodules in Chest Radiographs,” JAMA Netw Open, vol. 3, no. 9, p. e2017135, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.17135

    2020

  13. [22]

    Xception -ResNet Autoencoder for Pneumothorax Segmentation,

    A. Souid and H. Sakli, “Xception -ResNet Autoencoder for Pneumothorax Segmentation,” in 2022 IEEE 9th International Conference on Sciences of Electronics, Technologies of Information and Telecommunications (SETIT), Hammamet, Tunisia: IEEE, May 2022, pp. 586–590. doi: 10.1109/S...

    2022

  14. [23]

    Classification and Predictions of Lung Diseases from Chest X -rays Using MobileNet V2,

    A. Souid, N. Sakli, and H. Sakli, “Classification and Predictions of Lung Diseases from Chest X -rays Using MobileNet V2,” Applied Sciences, vol. 11, no. 6, p. 2751, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.3390/app11062751

    2021 doi

  15. [24]

    Automated abnormality classification of chest radiographs using deep convolutional neural networks,

    Y.-X. Tang et al. , “Automated abnormality classification of chest radiographs using deep convolutional neural networks,” npj Digit. Med., vol. 3, no. 1, p. 70, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1038/s41746-020-0273- z

    2020 doi

  16. [25]

    Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition,” 2015, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.1512.03385

    2015 doi arXiv

  17. [26]

    Densely Connected Convolutional Networks,

    G. Huang, Z. Liu, L. van der Maaten, and K. Q. Weinberger, “Densely Connected Convolutional Networks,” Aug. 2016, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1608.06993

    2016 doi arXiv

  18. [27]

    MobileNetV2: Inverted Residuals and Linear Bottlenecks,

    M. Sandler, A. Howard, M. Zhu, A. Zhmoginov, and L. -C. Chen, “MobileNetV2: Inverted Residuals and Linear Bottlenecks,” Jan. 2018, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1801.04381

    2018 doi arXiv

  19. [28]

    Comparative Performance Analysis of Different Classification Algorithm for the Purpose of Prediction of Lung Cancer,

    S. Bharati, P. Podder, R. Mondal, A. Mahmood, and Md. Raihan-Al- Masud, “Comparative Performance Analysis of Different Classification Algorithm for the Purpose of Prediction of Lung Cancer,” in Intelligent Systems Design and Applications , A. Abraham, A. K. Cherukuri, P. Melin...

    2020 doi

  20. [29]

    MARnet: multi -scale adaptive residual neural network for chest X-ray images recognition of lung diseases,

    B. Wang, W. Zhang, and School of Computer Science and Software Engineering, University of Science and Technology, Liaoning 114044, China, “MARnet: multi -scale adaptive residual neural network for chest X-ray images recognition of lung diseases,” MBE, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 331–3...

    2022 doi

  21. [30]

    EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networks,

    M. Tan and Q. V. Le, “EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networks,” May 2019, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1905.11946

    2019 doi arXiv

  22. [31]

    VinDr-CXR: An open dataset of chest X-rays with radiologist’s annotations,

    H. Q. Nguyen et al., “VinDr-CXR: An open dataset of chest X-rays with radiologist’s annotations,” arXiv:2012.15029 [eess] , Mar. 2022, Accessed: Apr. 01, 2022. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.15029

    2012 arXiv

  23. [32]

    ChestX-ray8: Hospital -scale Chest X -ray Database and Benchmarks on Weakly-Supervised Classification 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 Classification and Localization of Common Thorax Diseases,” May 2017, doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2017.369

    2017 doi

  24. [33]

    Labeled Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) and Chest X -Ray Images for Classification

    D. Kermany, “Labeled Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) and Chest X -Ray Images for Classification.” Mendeley, Jan. 06, 2018. doi: 10.17632/RSCBJBR9SJ.2

    2018 doi

  25. [34]

    Contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization based enhancement for real time video system,

    G. Yadav, S. Maheshwari, and A. Agarwal, “Contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization based enhancement for real time video system,” in 2014 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI) , Delhi, India: IEEE, Sep. 2014, pp. 239...

    2014

  26. [35]

    Performance Analysis of Google Colaboratory as a Tool for Accelerating Deep Learning Applications,

    T. Carneiro, R. V. M. D. Nóbrega, T. Nepomuceno, G. Bian, V. H. C. de Albuquerque, and P. Filho, “Performance Analysis of Google Colaboratory as a Tool for Accelerating Deep Learning Applications,” IEEE Access , 2018, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2874767

    2018

  27. [36]

    Comparison of Deep Learning Approaches for Multi -Label Chest X-Ray Classification,

    I. M. Baltruschat, H. Nickisch, M. Grass, T. Knopp, and A. Saalbach, “Comparison of Deep Learning Approaches for Multi -Label Chest X-Ray Classification,” Sci Rep, vol. 9, no. 1, Art. no. 1, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-42294-8

    2019 doi

  28. [37]

    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,” Oct. 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11263 -019- 01228-7

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.