Cited by 63Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareAI in cancer detection

Evaluation of artificial intelligence on a reference standard based on subjective interpretation

Open access
Chen, Po-Hsuan Cameron, Mermel, Craig H, Liu, Yun·2021·The Lancet Digital Health

Abstract

Rapid progress has been made in artificial intelligence (AI) models for medical applications, especially over the past 5 years, with substantial efforts focusing on diagnosis from medical images. An essential aspect of evaluating the performance of AI models and their potential clinical utility is the rigor of the reference standard.1 A reference standard is “the best available method for establishing the presence or absence of the target condition”,2 and is thus equivalent to what is commonly referred to as the ground truth in AI literature.

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(21)00216-8

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, P.-H. C., Mermel, C. H., & Liu, Y.
Corresponding author
Chen, Po-Hsuan Cameron
Venue
The Lancet Digital Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-11
Volume
3
Issue
11
Pages
e693-e695
ISSN
2589-7500 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3201000121
Cited by
63
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8
FWCI
2.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
Keywords
AI evaluation, reference materials, ground truth, subjective interpretation, medical image diagnosis, clinical utility, diagnostic accuracy
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Models, Biological, Reference Standards, Observer Variation

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