Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 308

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Automated deep learning design for medical image classification by health-care professionals with no coding experience: a feasibility study

Open access
Faes, Livia, Wagner, Siegfried K, Fu, Dun Jack, Liu, Xiaoxuan, Korot, Edward, Ledsam, Joseph R, Back, Trevor, Chopra, Reena, Pontikos, Nikolas, Kern, Christoph, Moraes, Gabriella, Schmid, Martin K, Sim, Dawn, Balaskas, Konstantinos, Bachmann, Lucas M, Denniston, Alastair K, Keane, Pearse A·2019·The Lancet Digital Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Deep learning has the potential to transform health care; however, substantial expertise is required to train such models. We sought to evaluate the utility of automated deep learning software to develop medical image diagnostic classifiers by health-care professionals with no coding-and no deep learning-expertise. METHODS: We used five publicly available open-source datasets: retinal fundus images (MESSIDOR); optical coherence tomography (OCT) images (Guangzhou Medical University and Shiley Eye Institute, version 3); images of skin lesions (Human Against Machine [HAM] 10000), and both paediatric and adult chest x-ray (CXR) images (Guangzhou Medical University and Shiley Eye Institute, version 3 and the National Institute of Health [NIH] dataset, respectively) to separately feed into a neural architecture search framework, hosted through Google Cloud AutoML, that automatically developed a deep learning architecture to classify common diseases. Sensitivity (recall), specificity, and positive predictive value (precision) were used to evaluate the diagnostic properties of the models. The discriminative performance was assessed using the area under the precision recall curve (AUPRC). In the case of the deep learning model developed on a subset of the HAM10000 dataset, we did external validation using the Edinburgh Dermofit Library dataset. FINDINGS: Diagnostic properties and discriminative performance from internal validations were high in the binary classification tasks (sensitivity 73·3-97·0%; specificity 67-100%; AUPRC 0·87-1·00). In the multiple classification tasks, the diagnostic properties ranged from 38% to 100% for sensitivity and from 67% to 100% for specificity. The discriminative performance in terms of AUPRC ranged from 0·57 to 1·00 in the five automated deep learning models. In an external validation using the Edinburgh Dermofit Library dataset, the automated deep learning model showed an AUPRC of 0·47, with a sensitivity of 49% and a positive predictive value of 52%. INTERPRETATION: All models, except the automated deep learning model trained on the multilabel classification task of the NIH CXR14 dataset, showed comparable discriminative performance and diagnostic properties to state-of-the-art performing deep learning algorithms. The performance in the external validation study was low. The quality of the open-access datasets (including insufficient information about patient flow and demographics) and the absence of measurement for precision, such as confidence intervals, constituted the major limitations of this study. The availability of automated deep learning platforms provide an opportunity for the medical community to enhance their understanding in model development and evaluation. Although the derivation of classification models without requiring a deep understanding of the mathematical, statistical, and programming principles is attractive, comparable performance to expertly designed models is limited to more elementary classification tasks. Furthermore, care should be placed in adhering to ethical principles when using these automated models to avoid discrimination and causing harm. Future studies should compare several application programming interfaces on thoroughly curated datasets. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research and Moorfields Eye Charity.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2589-7500(19)30108-6

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 32 references

Cited by

See all 308

Metadata

Authors
Faes, L., Wagner, S. K., Fu, D. J., Liu, X., Korot, E., Ledsam, J. R., Back, T., Chopra, R., Pontikos, N., Kern, C., Moraes, G., Schmid, M. K., Sim, D., Balaskas, K., Bachmann, L. M., Denniston, A. K., & Keane, P. A.
Venue
The Lancet Digital Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-09
Volume
1
Issue
5
Pages
e232-e242
ISSN
2589-7500 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2972198316
Cited by
308
References
32
FWCI
9.15
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Automated deep learning design for medical image classification by health-care professionals with no coding experience: a feasibility study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s2589-7500(19)30108-6
The paper
Faes, L., Wagner, S. K., Fu, D. J., Liu, X., Korot, E., Ledsam, J. R., Back, T., Chopra, R., Pontikos, N., Kern, C., Moraes, G., Schmid, M. K., Sim, D., Balaskas, K., Bachmann, L. M., Denniston, A. K., & Keane, P. A. (2019). Automated deep learning design for medical image classification by health-care professionals with no coding experience: a feasibility study. The Lancet Digital Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2589-7500(19)30108-6

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.