2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.04.057
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Artificial intelligence for disease diagnosis: the criterion standard challenge

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We therefore proposed an unsupervised/semisupervised learning process that may solve the number of underlying practical issues for the development of a medical AI model. 28 This study has some limitations. First, our study had a single-center retrospective design, which limits the number of cases and the generalizability of the findings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We therefore proposed an unsupervised/semisupervised learning process that may solve the number of underlying practical issues for the development of a medical AI model. 28 This study has some limitations. First, our study had a single-center retrospective design, which limits the number of cases and the generalizability of the findings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Second, it does not require any labeling processes to make a training dataset that requires tremendous effort. We therefore proposed an unsupervised/semisupervised learning process that may solve the number of underlying practical issues for the development of a medical AI model 28 …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This complication may be caused by interobserver variability among pathologists. 34 To address this challenge, Mori et al 34 suggested a semisupervised machine-learning approach involving the labeling of polyps by consensus among two or more experts for a pathological diagnosis, whereas difficult polyps could be used in an unlabeled manner. The novel machine-learning approach could be a possible solution.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…reported that their developed CADx showed a smaller area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (CADx vs. expert: 55% vs. 68–79%). This complication may be caused by interobserver variability among pathologists 34 . To address this challenge, Mori et al 34 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%