医生与机器学习模型对x射线肺炎检测准确性的差距分析

A. Rao
{"title":"医生与机器学习模型对x射线肺炎检测准确性的差距分析","authors":"A. Rao","doi":"10.1109/icadee51157.2020.9368913","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Machine learning (ML) can help in analyzing xray images to assist human doctors. ML algorithms are not perfect and when a ML algorithm makes a diagnostic error, it is often unclear why - were the features genuinely confusing or was it a badly trained algorithm. In this work, we first compare the accuracy of four well-known ML algorithms (KNN, Decision Tree, Logistic Regression and Convolutional Neural network) to detect pneumonia from chest X-rays of pediatric patients. We show that an algorithm based on Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) gave the best accuracy of 90.7%. We then present a small test set of the X-rays which were wrongly diagnosed by the CNN algorithm to a panel of 14 doctors to investigate why the algorithm may have failed. We analyze the gap between ML algorithms and real doctors. The panel of doctors was able to diagnose 37% of the images correctly, while it was confused on the remaining 63% of images. This shows that better ML algorithms and training methods can improve the accuracy up to 94%. For the truly confusing images, the doctors identified the following additional features that could be included to help in the diagnosis: Oxygen saturation level (SPO2), Age, Respiratory Rate, and Body Temperature.","PeriodicalId":202026,"journal":{"name":"2020 IEEE International Conference on Advances and Developments in Electrical and Electronics Engineering (ICADEE)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gap Analysis of the Accuracy of Doctors versus Machine Learning Models for Pneumonia Detection from X-Rays\",\"authors\":\"A. Rao\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/icadee51157.2020.9368913\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Machine learning (ML) can help in analyzing xray images to assist human doctors. ML algorithms are not perfect and when a ML algorithm makes a diagnostic error, it is often unclear why - were the features genuinely confusing or was it a badly trained algorithm. In this work, we first compare the accuracy of four well-known ML algorithms (KNN, Decision Tree, Logistic Regression and Convolutional Neural network) to detect pneumonia from chest X-rays of pediatric patients. We show that an algorithm based on Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) gave the best accuracy of 90.7%. We then present a small test set of the X-rays which were wrongly diagnosed by the CNN algorithm to a panel of 14 doctors to investigate why the algorithm may have failed. We analyze the gap between ML algorithms and real doctors. The panel of doctors was able to diagnose 37% of the images correctly, while it was confused on the remaining 63% of images. This shows that better ML algorithms and training methods can improve the accuracy up to 94%. For the truly confusing images, the doctors identified the following additional features that could be included to help in the diagnosis: Oxygen saturation level (SPO2), Age, Respiratory Rate, and Body Temperature.\",\"PeriodicalId\":202026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2020 IEEE International Conference on Advances and Developments in Electrical and Electronics Engineering (ICADEE)\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2020 IEEE International Conference on Advances and Developments in Electrical and Electronics Engineering (ICADEE)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/icadee51157.2020.9368913\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2020 IEEE International Conference on Advances and Developments in Electrical and Electronics Engineering (ICADEE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/icadee51157.2020.9368913","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

机器学习(ML)可以帮助分析x射线图像,以协助人类医生。机器学习算法并不完美,当机器学习算法出现诊断错误时,通常不清楚原因——是这些特征真的令人困惑,还是它是一个训练有素的算法。在这项工作中,我们首先比较了四种著名的ML算法(KNN,决策树,逻辑回归和卷积神经网络)在从儿科患者的胸部x射线中检测肺炎方面的准确性。我们表明,基于卷积神经网络(CNN)的算法给出了90.7%的最佳准确率。然后,我们向一个由14名医生组成的小组展示了一组被CNN算法错误诊断的x光片,以调查算法可能失败的原因。我们分析了机器学习算法和真实医生之间的差距。医生小组能够正确诊断37%的图像,而对其余63%的图像则感到困惑。这表明,更好的机器学习算法和训练方法可以将准确率提高到94%。对于真正令人困惑的图像,医生确定了以下额外的特征,可以包括以帮助诊断:血氧饱和度(SPO2),年龄,呼吸频率和体温。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Gap Analysis of the Accuracy of Doctors versus Machine Learning Models for Pneumonia Detection from X-Rays
Machine learning (ML) can help in analyzing xray images to assist human doctors. ML algorithms are not perfect and when a ML algorithm makes a diagnostic error, it is often unclear why - were the features genuinely confusing or was it a badly trained algorithm. In this work, we first compare the accuracy of four well-known ML algorithms (KNN, Decision Tree, Logistic Regression and Convolutional Neural network) to detect pneumonia from chest X-rays of pediatric patients. We show that an algorithm based on Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) gave the best accuracy of 90.7%. We then present a small test set of the X-rays which were wrongly diagnosed by the CNN algorithm to a panel of 14 doctors to investigate why the algorithm may have failed. We analyze the gap between ML algorithms and real doctors. The panel of doctors was able to diagnose 37% of the images correctly, while it was confused on the remaining 63% of images. This shows that better ML algorithms and training methods can improve the accuracy up to 94%. For the truly confusing images, the doctors identified the following additional features that could be included to help in the diagnosis: Oxygen saturation level (SPO2), Age, Respiratory Rate, and Body Temperature.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信