The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic review of artificial intelligence techniques in the detection and classification of COVID-19 medical images in terms of evaluation and benchmarking: Taxonomy analysis, challenges, future solutions and methodological aspects
Open accessAbstract
This study presents a systematic review of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques used in the detection and classification of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) medical images in terms of evaluation and benchmarking. Five reliable databases, namely, IEEE Xplore, Web of Science, PubMed, ScienceDirect and Scopus were used to obtain relevant studies of the given topic. Several filtering and scanning stages were performed according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria to screen the 36 studies obtained; however, only 11 studies met the criteria. Taxonomy was performed, and the 11 studies were classified on the basis of two categories, namely, review and research studies. Then, a deep analysis and critical review were performed to highlight the challenges and critical gaps outlined in the academic literature of the given subject. Results showed that no relevant study evaluated and benchmarked AI techniques utilised in classification tasks (i.e. binary, multi-class, multi-labelled and hierarchical classifications) of COVID-19 medical images. In case evaluation and benchmarking will be conducted, three future challenges will be encountered, namely, multiple evaluation criteria within each classification task, trade-off amongst criteria and importance of these criteria. According to the discussed future challenges, the process of evaluation and benchmarking AI techniques used in the classification of COVID-19 medical images considered multi-complex attribute problems. Thus, adopting multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is an essential and effective approach to tackle the problem complexity. Moreover, this study proposes a detailed methodology for the evaluation and benchmarking of AI techniques used in all classification tasks of COVID-19 medical images as future directions; such methodology is presented on the basis of three sequential phases. Firstly, the identification procedure for the construction of four decision matrices, namely, binary, multi-class, multi-labelled and hierarchical, is presented on the basis of the intersection of evaluation criteria of each classification task and AI classification techniques. Secondly, the development of the MCDA approach for benchmarking AI classification techniques is provided on the basis of the integrated analytic hierarchy process and VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje methods. Lastly, objective and subjective validation procedures are described to validate the proposed benchmarking solutions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis
Litjens, G., Kooi, T., Bejnordi, B. E., Setio, A. A. A., Ciompi, F., Ghafoorian, M., van der Laak, J. A. W. M., van Ginneken, B., & Sánchez, C. I. (2017) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2017.07.005 · Cited by 15,332
A systematic analysis of performance measures for classification tasks
Sokolova, M., & Lapalme, G. (2009) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2009.03.002 · Cited by 7,515
Artificial intelligence in healthcare
Yu, K.-H., Beam, A. L., & Kohane, I. S. (2018) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-018-0305-z · Cited by 2,817
Shi, F., Wang, J., Shi, J., Wu, Z., Wang, Q., Tang, Z., He, K., Shi, Y., & Shen, D. (2021) · IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/rbme.2020.2987975 · Cited by 1,404
Schwartz, D. A. (2020) · Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · doi:10.5858/arpa.2020-0901-sa · Cited by 976
Artificial intelligence in medical practice: the question to the answer?
Miller, D. D., & Brown, E. W. (2018) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.10.035 · Cited by 774
Cited by
Roberts, M., Driggs, D., Thorpe, M., Gilbey, J., Yeung, M., Ursprung, S., Aviles-Rivero, A. I., Etmann, C., McCague, C., Beer, L., et al. (2021) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-021-00307-0 · Cited by 1,044
Roberts, M. T., Driggs, D., Thorpe, M., Gilbey, J., Yeung, M., Ursprung, S., Avilés-Rivero, A. I., Etmann, C., McCague, C., Beer, L., et al. (2020) · Apollo (University of Cambridge) · doi:10.17863/cam.64000 · Cited by 895
Robotics and artificial intelligence in healthcare during COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review
Sarker, S., Jamal, L., Ahmed, S. F., & Irtisam, N. (2021) · Robotics and Autonomous Systems · doi:10.1016/j.robot.2021.103902 · Cited by 199
Hybrid artificial neural network and structural equation modelling techniques: A survey
Albahri, A. S., Alnoor, A., Zaidan, A. A., Albahri, O. S., Hameed, H., Zaidan, B. B., Peh, S. S., Zain, A. B., Siraj, S. B., Masnan, A. H. B., et al. (2022) · Complex & Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1007/s40747-021-00503-w · Cited by 173
Suri, J. S., Agarwal, S., Jena, B., Saxena, S., El-Baz, A., Agarwal, V., Kalra, M. K., Saba, L., Viskovic, K., Fatemi, M., et al. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · doi:10.1109/tim.2022.3174270 · Cited by 38
Zhou, Y., Mei, S., Wang, J., Xu, Q., Zhang, Z., Qin, S., Feng, J., Li, C., Xing, S., Wang, W., et al. (2024) · eClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102772 · Cited by 26
Verenich, E., Martin, T., Velasquez, A., Khan, N., & Hussain, F. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.00573 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Albahri, O. S., Zaidan, A. A., Albahri, A. S., Zaidan, B. B., Abdulkareem, K. H., Al-qaysi, Z. T., Alamoodi, A. H., Aleesa, A. M., Chyad, M. A., Alesa, R. M., Lim, C. K., Lakulu, M. M., Ibrahim, A. B., & Rashid, N. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Infection and Public Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-10
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1381-1396
- ISSN
- 1876-0341 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3039182478
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 10.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.