2019
DOI: 10.1101/19013730
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Making densenet interpretable a case study in clinical radiology

Abstract: The monotonous routine of medical image analysis under tight time constraints has always led to work fatigue for many medical practitioners. Medical image interpretation can be error-prone and this can increase the risk of an incorrect procedure being recommended. While the advancement of complex deep learning models has achieved performance beyond human capability in some computer vision tasks, widespread adoption in the medical field has been held back, among other factors, by poor model interpretability and… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1
1
1
1

Relationship

2
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, the prospect of replacing the semi-automatic nature of the methodology with a fully automatic should be explored. This includes the February 18, 2020 6/14 possible option to incorporate the use of convolution neural networks for automatic detection of the radius [36,37] and fracture diagnosis [38].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, the prospect of replacing the semi-automatic nature of the methodology with a fully automatic should be explored. This includes the February 18, 2020 6/14 possible option to incorporate the use of convolution neural networks for automatic detection of the radius [36,37] and fracture diagnosis [38].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, the prospect of replacing the semi-automatic nature of the methodology with a fully automatic should be explored. This includes the possible option to incorporate the use of convolution neural networks for automatic detection of the radius [ 51 , 52 ] and fracture diagnosis [ 53 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%