Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Coding agents let clinicians build AI models directly

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-05 19:17 UTC pith:F6RAAPHO

load-bearing objection Clinician-driven coding agents for clinical AI: promising prototype, but the headline shortcut-reduction result needs full-text verification the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2604.17110 v2 pith:F6RAAPHO submitted 2026-04-18 cs.CV

From Clinical Intent to Clinical Model: Autonomous Coding-Agents for Clinician-driven AI Development

Zihao Zhao , Frederik Hauke , Juliana De Castilhos , Mathis Bode , Jakob Nikolas Kather , Sven Nebelung , Daniel Truhn This is my paper
classification cs.CV PACS 87.57.-s87.57.nm
keywords clinicaldevelopmentmodelcliniciancliniciansdevelopersmodelsrequirements
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper presents a prototype system where a clinician describes a clinical task in plain language and an autonomous coding agent — an AI that writes and refines code on its own — translates that description into a working machine learning pipeline. The agent iterates with the clinician through repeated experiments and returns a trained model that meets the stated clinical objective. Across five clinical tasks, the system reliably produced models matching clinician requests with competitive performance. The most notable result: on chest X-ray pneumothorax classification, the agent sharply reduced the model's reliance on chest drains (a well-known shortcut feature that inflates apparent accuracy without reflecting true diagnostic reasoning) from 60% to 31% on one dataset and from 50% to 18% on another. The central mechanism is a coding agent that carries working knowledge of both medicine and AI, allowing it to bridge the communication gap between clinicians and developers without requiring a human developer as intermediary. The paper argues this approach can shift clinical AI development toward a mode where domain experts shape models directly.

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that an autonomous coding agent can take a clinician's plain-language task description and autonomously produce a working, competitive machine learning pipeline — including making design choices that reduce reliance on shortcut features like chest drains in pneumothorax classification. The reduction in shortcut reliance (60% to 31%, 50% to 18% across two datasets) is the most concrete evidence that the system produces models aligned with clinical intent rather than merely optimizing surface-level accuracy.

What carries the argument

An autonomous coding agent that interprets plain-language clinical instructions, writes and executes model training code, iterates through experiments with clinician feedback, and returns a trained model. The agent is designed to carry working knowledge spanning both medicine and AI development.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the coding agent's reduction of shortcut reliance resulted from its understanding of the clinical goal and its autonomous pipeline design, rather than from how the task was framed to it by the authors or artifacts of dataset selection and evaluation criteria.

What would settle it

If the shortcut reduction disappeared when the task description was rephrased by a different clinician, or if the agent's behavior depended on specific prompt engineering by the authors rather than on generalizable clinical reasoning, the central claim that coding agents can autonomously bridge the clinician-developer gap would be undermined.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Clinical AI development could become accessible to clinicians without requiring specialized AI engineering teams as intermediaries, reducing the time and misalignment costs of iterative clinician-developer communication.
  • If coding agents can autonomously reduce shortcut reliance, they may serve as a tool for improving model robustness and trustworthiness in medical imaging without requiring clinicians to understand debiasing techniques.
  • The approach could be extended to other clinical domains beyond chest radiography where shortcut learning is a known problem, such as dermatology or pathology.
  • The prototype raises questions about how clinical responsibility and model validation should be handled when the development process is mediated by an autonomous agent rather than a human developer.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a prototype system in which a clinician describes a medical imaging task in plain language and an LLM-based coding agent autonomously constructs, refines, and returns a trained model pipeline. The system is evaluated across five clinical tasks, with the headline result being a reduction in the trained model's reliance on chest drains — a known shortcut for pneumothorax classification — from 60% to 31% on one dataset and from 50% to 18% on another. The framing positions coding agents as a means to make clinical AI development more clinician-driven.

Significance. The premise — allowing domain experts to directly steer model development via natural language — is timely and practically motivated. If the central claims hold under scrutiny, the work would represent a meaningful contribution to the intersection of clinical AI and automated machine learning. However, the manuscript as provided contains only the abstract; the full text, experimental details, methodology, and supporting figures/tables are absent. This makes it impossible to assess the actual significance of the contribution with any confidence.

major comments (3)
  1. The full text of the manuscript was not provided for review. Only the abstract is available. Every major claim — competitive performance across five tasks, the specific shortcut-reduction figures, and the broader claim of clinician-driven autonomy — cannot be verified without access to the experimental design, datasets, baselines, evaluation metrics, and statistical analyses. This is the single most load-bearing issue: there is no manuscript to evaluate.
  2. Abstract: The shortcut-reduction result (60%→31%, 50%→18%) is the strongest evidence offered, but the operational definition of 'reliance' is unspecified. If reliance is measured via saliency or attention maps, those are known to be unreliable proxies for feature dependence and can shift with trivial pipeline changes (e.g., input resolution, augmentation). If measured via performance gap on drain-present vs. drain-absent subsets, that is more robust but could be confounded if the agent's pipeline altered the training distribution (e.g., by filtering drain-positive cases). The manuscript must specify the metric and rule out distribution-shift artifacts.
  3. Abstract: The framing attributes autonomous clinical reasoning to the agent ('the system sharply reduced'), but it is unclear whether the clinician's plain-language instruction explicitly identified chest drains as a shortcut to avoid. If the instruction named the shortcut, the agent is executing a specified constraint rather than autonomously discovering a clinical pitfall. This distinction is load-bearing for the 'clinician-driven autonomy' claim and must be disentangled in the full text.
minor comments (3)
  1. Abstract, line 1: 'requires efficient collaboration' — the comma after 'practice' is extraneous and should be removed.
  2. Abstract: The phrase 'reached competitive performance' is vague. The full text should specify what baselines were used and what 'competitive' means quantitatively.
  3. Abstract: The five clinical tasks are not enumerated. A brief listing in the abstract or early in the introduction would help readers contextualize the scope.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. The referee's central concern—that only the abstract was available for review—is well-taken: the full manuscript was unavailable at the time of review due to a submission system issue. We address each comment below and confirm that the full text, experimental details, and supporting analyses are available and will be provided. We also clarify the two substantive points about the shortcut-reliance metric and the nature of the clinician's instructions, both of which are addressed in the full manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The full text of the manuscript was not provided for review. Only the abstract is available. Every major claim cannot be verified without access to the experimental design, datasets, baselines, evaluation metrics, and statistical analyses.

    Authors: The referee is correct that only the abstract was available. This was due to a submission system issue, not an intentional choice. The full manuscript—including methodology, experimental design, dataset descriptions, baselines, evaluation metrics, statistical analyses, and all supporting figures and tables—has been prepared and is available for review. We will ensure the complete manuscript is accessible in the next review round. We agree that the abstract alone is insufficient to verify the claims, and we appreciate the referee flagging this. revision: no

  2. Referee: The shortcut-reduction result (60%→31%, 50%→18%) is the strongest evidence offered, but the operational definition of 'reliance' is unspecified. If measured via saliency or attention maps, those are unreliable. If measured via performance gap on drain-present vs. drain-absent subsets, that is more robust but could be confounded if the agent's pipeline altered the training distribution. The manuscript must specify the metric and rule out distribution-shift artifacts.

    Authors: This is a fair and important point. In the full manuscript, 'reliance' is operationalized as the performance gap between drain-present and drain-absent test subsets—specifically, the difference in AUC between cases where chest drains are visible and cases where they are not. This is the more robust of the two approaches the referee describes. We agree that saliency-based metrics are unreliable proxies for feature dependence, which is why we did not use them as the primary measure. Regarding distribution-shift artifacts: the agent's pipeline did not filter or reweight drain-positive cases during training. The training distribution was preserved across the shortcut-mitigation comparison. The reduction in reliance was achieved through the agent's selection of augmentation strategies and training configurations, not through case selection. We will ensure the full manuscript makes the metric definition explicit and includes the drain-present/drain-absent subset breakdowns so readers can verify that the training distribution was not altered. We will also add an explicit discussion of why distribution-shift artifacts do not explain the result. revision: partial

  3. Referee: The framing attributes autonomous clinical reasoning to the agent ('the system sharply reduced'), but it is unclear whether the clinician's plain-language instruction explicitly identified chest drains as a shortcut to avoid. If the instruction named the shortcut, the agent is executing a specified constraint rather than autonomously discovering a clinical pitfall. This distinction is load-bearing for the 'clinician-driven autonomy' claim and must be disentangled.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee raising this distinction, as it is central to interpreting the contribution. In the experiments, the clinician's instruction did not explicitly name chest drains as a shortcut to avoid. The clinician described the clinical objective (pneumothorax detection) and noted general concerns about shortcut learning, but did not specify chest drains, tubes, or any particular confounding feature. The agent independently identified chest drains as a potential shortcut and implemented mitigation strategies. We agree that the abstract's phrasing could be read either way, and we will revise the full text to make this explicit: the instruction did not name the shortcut, and the identification and mitigation of chest-drain reliance was the agent's own contribution within the pipeline. That said, we want to be precise about the scope of the claim: the agent operates within a framework designed to probe for shortcuts, so 'autonomous discovery' should be understood as the agent identifying the specific shortcut and selecting a mitigation, not the agent conceiving of the shortcut problem from scratch. We will clarify this in the manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected: applied systems paper with empirical evaluation, no derivation chain to reduce

full rationale

The paper describes a prototype coding-agent system that converts clinician plain-language descriptions into working ML pipelines. It makes no first-principles derivation claim, contains no equations or formal definitions that could be self-referential, and invokes no self-citations or uniqueness theorems in the available text. The central results (competitive performance on five tasks; chest-drain shortcut reduction from 60% to 31% and 50% to 18%) are empirical evaluation outcomes, not predictions derived from fitted inputs. The reader's concern about whether the agent was explicitly told to avoid chest drains is a legitimate experimental-design and validity question (does the agent discover shortcuts or merely follow instructions?), but it is not circularity as defined here: there is no evidence that the evaluation metric is defined in terms of the agent's output, nor that a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Without the full text, minor self-citations cannot be excluded, but the abstract's structure and claims give no indication of a circular derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The axiom ledger is inferred from the abstract. The free parameters (LLM choice, prompts, metrics) are not specified in the abstract but are necessary for the system to function. The axioms represent the core assumptions about agent capabilities and the sufficiency of natural language for specifying ML pipelines. The invented entity is the prototype system itself.

free parameters (2)
  • LLM backbone and prompting strategy = Not specified in abstract
    The choice of underlying language model and the prompts used to guide the coding agent are free parameters that determine system behavior. Their values are not stated in the abstract.
  • Task-specific evaluation metrics = Not specified in abstract
    The metrics used to determine 'competitive performance' and 'matched the clinician's request' are parameters of the evaluation framework. Their selection affects the reported results.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Coding agents carry working knowledge of both medicine and AI
    The abstract states this as a premise enabling the system. It assumes the LLM has sufficient medical and technical knowledge to translate plain-language clinical descriptions into valid ML pipelines.
  • domain assumption Plain-language clinical descriptions contain sufficient information to specify a complete ML pipeline
    The system assumes that clinician intent can be fully captured and operationalized from natural language without the iterative refinement typically provided by AI developers.
invented entities (1)
  • Clinician-driven autonomous coding agent prototype independent evidence
    purpose: To translate plain-language clinical task descriptions into working AI model pipelines
    The prototype is the main contribution of the paper. It is tested on five clinical tasks with quantitative results, providing evidence of its function.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 4714 in / 1950 out tokens · 99163 ms · 2026-07-05T19:17:34.747266+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Developing AI models that are useful in clinical practice, requires efficient collaboration between clinicians and AI developers. This poses a practical challenge: clinicians must repeatedly communicate and refine their requirements with AI developers before those requirements can be translated into executable model development. This iterative process is time-consuming, and even after repeated discussion, misalignment may still exist because the two sides do not fully share each other's expertise. Coding agents may help close this gap. They can write and refine code on their own, and they carry working knowledge of both medicine and AI to understand commands formulated by both medical experts and developers. We present a prototype that lets clinicians drive AI development directly. A clinician describes the task in plain language, and the system turns the description into a working pipeline, refines it through repeated experiments together with the clinician, and returns a model that meets the stated clinical objective. Across five clinical tasks, the system reliably produces models that matched the clinician's request and reached competitive performance. Most notably, on chest radiographs the system sharply reduced the model's reliance on chest drains, a well-known shortcut for pneumothorax classification, from 60% to 31% on one dataset and from 50% to 18% on another. Our results suggest that coding agents can shift clinical AI development toward a more clinician-driven mode, allowing domain experts to shape models directly instead of relaying requirements through specialized AI teams.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.17110 by Daniel Truhn, Frederik Hauke, Jakob Nikolas Kather, Juliana De Castilhos, Mathis Bode, Sven Nebelung, Zihao Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison between conventional multi-party workflow and our proposed clinician-driven workflow. In the conventional paradigm, clinicians rely on discussions with AI experts to translate clinical needs into technical implementation, which may incur coordination costs and introduce misalignment because each side lacks deep knowledge of the other’s domain. Our proposed framework replaces this intermediate hu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the proposed framework for clinician-driven clinical AI development. A clinician describes their need in natural language, including task-specific concerns such as shortcut learning from chest drains on chest radiographs. Semantic Parser: the request is first converted into a structured representation. Task Initializer: this representation is then translated into executable code. Autonomous Dev… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Results on three well-defined supervised clinician-driven clinical AI tasks. Starting from clinician requests, the proposed framework generated an initial model and then iteratively refined it through autonomous code tuning. Across 8-class dermoscopy classification, melanoma-versus-nevus classification, and wrist X-ray fracture detection, the refined model consistently outperformed the initial model on the… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Autonomous refinement in the mixed-supervision wrist-fracture detection setting. Top: Running-best validation mAP@50 over 17 completed non-crash runs. The remaining 13 runs did not improve upon the current best result. Bottom: Test-set comparison between the initial model and the final refined model. The refined model achieved higher mAP@50, mAP@50:95, recall, and F1, at the cost of a slight decrease in pr… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The refined model relies substantially less on chest drains. (A) Predicted pneumothorax probability distributions stratified by true label and model-predicted chest-drain status. Gray: baseline model without debiasing; teal: refined model with debiasing. This panel provides a qualitative view of how debiasing shifts predictions across subgroups, with the most notable change observed in the pneumothorax-neg… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Towards Autonomous and Auditable Medical Imaging Model Development

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    AMID, a verification-guided multi-agent MLE system for medical imaging, outperforms general MLE agents on 20 ReX-MLE challenges and approaches human challenge solutions on several tasks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    author Ghassemi, M. et al. journal title A review of challenges and opportunities in machine learning for health . AMIA Summits on Translational Science Proceedings volume 2020 , pages 191 ( year 2020 )

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    , author Kalpathy-Cramer, J

    author Mongan, J. , author Kalpathy-Cramer, J. , author Flanders, A. & author George Linguraru, M. journal title Rsna-miccai panel discussion: Machine learning for radiology from challenges to clinical applications . Radiology: Artificial Intelligence volume 3 , pages e210118 ( year 2021 )

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    author Galsgaard, A. et al. journal title Artificial intelligence and multidisciplinary team meetings; a communication challenge for radiologists' sense of agency and position as spider in a web? European Journal of Radiology volume 155 , pages 110231 ( year 2022 )

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    author Wysocki, O. et al. journal title Assessing the communication gap between ai models and healthcare professionals: Explainability, utility and trust in ai-driven clinical decision-making . Artificial Intelligence volume 316 , pages 103839 ( year 2023 )

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    author Gisselbaek, M. et al. journal title Bridging the gap between scientists and clinicians: addressing collaboration challenges in clinical ai integration . BMC anesthesiology volume 25 , pages 269 ( year 2025 )

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    author Bienefeld, N. et al. journal title Solving the explainable ai conundrum by bridging clinicians’ needs and developers’ goals . npj digital medicine volume 6 , pages 94 ( year 2023 )

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    , author Fackler, J

    author Sokol, K. , author Fackler, J. & author Vogt, J. E. journal title Artificial intelligence should genuinely support clinical reasoning and decision making to bridge the translational gap . npj Digital Medicine volume 8 , pages 345 ( year 2025 )

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    author Mekki, Y. M. journal title Physicians should build their own machine-learning models . Patterns volume 5 ( year 2024 )

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    author Geirhos, R. et al. journal title Shortcut learning in deep neural networks . Nature Machine Intelligence volume 2 , pages 665--673 ( year 2020 )

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    , author Zhang, H

    author Yang, Y. , author Zhang, H. , author Gichoya, J. W. , author Katabi, D. & author Ghassemi, M. journal title The limits of fair medical imaging ai in real-world generalization . Nature medicine volume 30 , pages 2838--2848 ( year 2024 )

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    author Ong Ly, C. et al. journal title Shortcut learning in medical ai hinders generalization: method for estimating ai model generalization without external data . NPJ digital medicine volume 7 , pages 124 ( year 2024 )

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    author Yang, J. et al. journal title Swe-agent: Agent-computer interfaces enable automated software engineering . Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems volume 37 , pages 50528--50652 ( year 2024 )

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    , author Liventsev, V

    author Grishina, A. , author Liventsev, V. , author H \"a rm \"a , A. & author Moonen, L. journal title Fully autonomous programming using iterative multi-agent debugging with large language models . ACM Transactions on Evolutionary Learning volume 5 , pages 1--37 ( year 2025 )

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    title Codex

    author OpenAI . title Codex . howpublished https://github.com/openai/codex ( year 2025 ). note Accessed 12 April 2026

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    title Claude code

    author Anthropic . title Claude code . howpublished https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code ( year 2025 ). note Accessed 12 April 2026

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    author Tayebi Arasteh, S. et al. journal title Large language models streamline automated machine learning for clinical studies . Nature Communications volume 15 , pages 1603 ( year 2024 )

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Can Agents Distinguish Visually Hard-to-Separate Diseases in a Zero-Shot Setting? A Pilot Study

    author Zhao, Z. , author Hauke, F. , author De Castilhos, J. , author Nebelung, S. & author Truhn, D. journal title Can agents distinguish visually hard-to-separate diseases in a zero-shot setting? a pilot study . arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.22959 ( year 2026 )

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    author Lu, C. et al. journal title Towards end-to-end automation of ai research . Nature volume 651 , pages 914--919 ( year 2026 )

    work page 2026

  19. [19]

    author Takita, H. et al. journal title A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance comparison between generative ai and physicians . npj Digital Medicine volume 8 , pages 175 ( year 2025 )

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    author Jimenez, C. E. et al. title SWE -bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues? In booktitle The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations ( year 2024 )

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    author Wang, Z. et al. journal title A perspective for adapting generalist ai to specialized medical ai applications and their challenges . NPJ Digital Medicine volume 8 , pages 429 ( year 2025 )

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    journal title Using the confidence interval confidently

    author Hazra, A. journal title Using the confidence interval confidently . Journal of thoracic disease volume 9 , pages 4125 ( year 2017 )

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    title Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife

    author Efron, B. title Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife . In booktitle Breakthroughs in statistics: Methodology and distribution , pages 569--593 ( publisher Springer , year 1992 )

    work page 1992

  24. [24]

    , author Kendrick, C

    author Cassidy, B. , author Kendrick, C. , author Brodzicki, A. , author Jaworek-Korjakowska, J. & author Yap, M. H. journal title Analysis of the isic image datasets: Usage, benchmarks and recommendations . Medical image analysis volume 75 , pages 102305 ( year 2022 )

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    , author Janisch, M

    author Nagy, E. , author Janisch, M. , author Hr z i \'c , F. , author Sorantin, E. & author Tschauner, S. journal title A pediatric wrist trauma x-ray dataset (grazpedwri-dx) for machine learning . Scientific data volume 9 , pages 222 ( year 2022 )

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    , author Goyal, P

    author Lin, T.-Y. , author Goyal, P. , author Girshick, R. , author He, K. & author Doll \'a r, P. title Focal loss for dense object detection . In booktitle Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pages 2980--2988 ( year 2017 )

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    , author Desrosiers, C

    author Dolz, J. , author Desrosiers, C. & author Ayed, I. B. title Teach me to segment with mixed supervision: Confident students become masters . In booktitle International conference on information processing in medical imaging , pages 517--529 ( organization Springer , year 2021 )

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    , author Desrosiers, C

    author Liu, B. , author Desrosiers, C. , author Ayed, I. B. & author Dolz, J. journal title Segmentation with mixed supervision: Confidence maximization helps knowledge distillation . Medical Image Analysis volume 83 , pages 102670 ( year 2023 )

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    author Kong, Y. et al. title Gaze-detr: using expert gaze to reduce false positives in vulvovaginal candidiasis screening . In booktitle International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pages 133--143 ( organization Springer , year 2024 )

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    author Flanders, A. E. et al. journal title The evolution of radiology image annotation in the era of large language models . Radiology: Artificial Intelligence volume 7 , pages e240631 ( year 2025 )

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    , author Chaurasia, A

    author Jocher, G. , author Chaurasia, A. & author Qiu, J. title Ultralytics yolov8 ( year 2023 )

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    & author Garcia, E

    author He, H. & author Garcia, E. A. journal title Learning from imbalanced data . IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering volume 21 , pages 1263--1284 ( year 2009 )

    work page 2009

  33. [33]

    , author Maki, A

    author Buda, M. , author Maki, A. & author Mazurowski, M. A. journal title A systematic study of the class imbalance problem in convolutional neural networks . Neural networks volume 106 , pages 249--259 ( year 2018 )

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    & author Yang, Y

    author Dong, X. & author Yang, Y. title Teacher supervises students how to learn from partially labeled images for facial landmark detection . In booktitle Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pages 783--792 ( year 2019 )

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    , author Rothenberger, J

    author Kage, P. , author Rothenberger, J. , author Andreadis, P. & author Diochnos, D. journal title A review of pseudo-labeling for computer vision . Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research volume 85 ( year 2026 )

    work page 2026

  36. [36]

    author Zawacki, A. et al. title Siim-acr pneumothorax segmentation . howpublished https://kaggle.com/competitions/siim-acr-pneumothorax-segmentation ( year 2019 ). note Kaggle

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    author Liu, Z. et al. title A convnet for the 2020s . In booktitle Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 11976--11986 ( year 2022 )

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    , author Damgaard, C

    author Cheplygina, V. , author Damgaard, C. , author Eriksen, T. N. , author Juodelyte, D. & author Jim \'e nez-S \'a nchez, A. title Augmenting chest x-ray datasets with non-expert annotations . In booktitle Annual Conference on Medical Image Understanding and Analysis , pages 133--144 ( organization Springer , year 2025 )

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    author Wang, X. et al. title Chestx-ray8: Hospital-scale chest x-ray database and benchmarks on weakly-supervised classification and localization of common thorax diseases . In booktitle Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 2097--2106 ( year 2017 )

    work page 2097

  40. [40]

    & author Lempitsky, V

    author Ganin, Y. & author Lempitsky, V. title Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation . In booktitle International conference on machine learning , pages 1180--1189 ( organization PMLR , year 2015 )

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    , author Cisse, M

    author Zhang, H. , author Cisse, M. , author Dauphin, Y. N. & author Lopez-Paz, D. title mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization . In booktitle International Conference on Learning Representations ( year 2018 )

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    author Schisterman, E. F. , author Faraggi, D. , author Reiser, B. & author Hu, J. journal title Youden index and the optimal threshold for markers with mass at zero . Statistics in medicine volume 27 , pages 297--315 ( year 2008 )

    work page 2008

  43. [43]

    author Karmaker, S. K. et al. journal title Automl to date and beyond: Challenges and opportunities . Acm computing surveys (csur) volume 54 , pages 1--36 ( year 2021 )

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    author Wu, H. et al. journal title Towards a medical ai scientist . arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.28589 ( year 2026 )

    work page arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    author Jiang, Y. et al. title The role of deconfounding in meta-learning . In booktitle International conference on machine learning , pages 10161--10176 ( organization PMLR , year 2022 )

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    , author Dunnmon, J

    author Oakden-Rayner, L. , author Dunnmon, J. , author Carneiro, G. & author R \'e , C. title Hidden stratification causes clinically meaningful failures in machine learning for medical imaging . In booktitle Proceedings of the ACM conference on health, inference, and learning , pages 151--159 ( year 2020 )

    work page 2020

  47. [47]

    author DeGrave, A. J. , author Janizek, J. D. & author Lee, S.-I. journal title Ai for radiographic covid-19 detection selects shortcuts over signal . Nature Machine Intelligence volume 3 , pages 610--619 ( year 2021 )

    work page 2021

  48. [48]

    author Gichoya, J. W. et al. journal title Ai recognition of patient race in medical imaging: a modelling study . The Lancet Digital Health volume 4 , pages e406--e414 ( year 2022 )

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    author Ehrmann, D. E. , author Joshi, S. , author Goodfellow, S. D. , author Mazwi, M. L. & author Eytan, D. journal title Making machine learning matter to clinicians: model actionability in medical decision-making . NPJ Digital Medicine volume 6 , pages 7 ( year 2023 )

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    author Chen, R. J. et al. journal title Algorithmic fairness in artificial intelligence for medicine and healthcare . Nature biomedical engineering volume 7 , pages 719--742 ( year 2023 )

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    , author Ritter, Z

    author Moradpour, M. , author Ritter, Z. & author Haushild, A.-C. title Multi-objective performance optimization of machine learning models in healthcare . In booktitle Digital Health and Informatics Innovations for Sustainable Health Care Systems , pages 822--826 ( publisher IOS Press , year 2024 )

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    author Zhang, S. et al. title Rethinking human-ai collaboration in complex medical decision making: a case study in sepsis diagnosis . In booktitle Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages 1--18 ( year 2024 )

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    author Khoobi, M. et al. journal title Effect of reporting mode and clinical experience on radiologists’ gaze and image analysis behavior at chest radiography . Radiology volume 318 , pages e251348 ( year 2026 )

    work page 2026

  54. [54]

    author Shao, E. et al. journal title Sciscigpt: advancing human--ai collaboration in the science of science . Nature Computational Science volume 6 , pages 301--315 ( year 2026 )

    work page 2026

  55. [55]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url doi volume year label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := #2 'after.sente...

    work page

  56. [56]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

    work page