The DOI matches its Crossref record; 109 of the 109 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Machine learning for medical imaging: methodological failures and recommendations for the future
Open accessAbstract
Research in computer analysis of medical images bears many promises to improve patients’ health. However, a number of systematic challenges are slowing down the progress of the field, from limitations of the data, such as biases, to research incentives, such as optimizing for publication. In this paper we review roadblocks to developing and assessing methods. Building our analysis on evidence from the literature and data challenges, we show that at every step, potential biases can creep in. On a positive note, we also discuss on-going efforts to counteract these problems. Finally we provide recommendations on how to further address these problems in the future.
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
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
Topol, E. J. (2019) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7 · Cited by 10,450
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702
Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials
Campbell, M. K., Piaggio, G., Elbourne, D. R., Altman, D. G., & for the CONSORT Group (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e5661 · Cited by 3,510
PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies
Wolff, R. F., Moons, K. G. M., Riley, R. D., Whiting, P. F., Westwood, M., Collins, G. S., Reitsma, J. B., Kleijnen, J., Mallett, S., & for the PROBAST Group† (2019) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-1376 · Cited by 2,984
Model Cards for Model Reporting
Mitchell, M., Wu, S., Zaldivar, A., Barnes, P., Vasserman, L., Hutchinson, B., Spitzer, E., Raji, I. D., & Gebru, T. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287596 · Cited by 2,681
Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics
On behalf of Topic Group ‘Evaluating diagnostic tests and prediction models’ of the STRATOS initiative, Van Calster, B., McLernon, D. J., van Smeden, M., Wynants, L., & Steyerberg, E. W. (2019) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1466-7 · Cited by 2,650
CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials
Campbell, M. K., Elbourne, D. R., & Altman, D. G. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7441.702 · Cited by 2,557
Cited by
Lekadir, K., Frangi, A. F., Porras, A. R., Glocker, B., Cintas, C., Langlotz, C. P., Weicken, E., Asselbergs, F. W., Prior, F., Collins, G. S., et al. (2025) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-081554 · Cited by 957
McGenity, C., Clarke, E. L., Jennings, C., Matthews, G., Cartlidge, C., Freduah-Agyemang, H., Stocken, D. D., & Treanor, D. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01106-8 · Cited by 290
Resnik, D. B., & Hosseini, M. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-024-00493-8 · Cited by 228
“AI systems also make errors in reading, classifying, and reconstructing radiological images, but the error rate is decreasing, and AI systems will soon outperform humans in terms of speed and accuracy of image reading [12, 17, 103, 228].”
Generative models improve fairness of medical classifiers under distribution shifts
Ktena, I., Wiles, O., Albuquerque, I., Rebuffi, S.-A., Tanno, R., Roy, A. G., Azizi, S., Belgrave, D., Kohli, P., Cemgil, T., et al. (2024) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-024-02838-6 · Cited by 165
Koçak, B., Ponsiglione, A., Stanzione, A., Bluethgen, C., Santinha, J., Ugga, L., Huisman, M., Klontzas, M. E., Cannella, R., & Cuocolo, R. (2024) · Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology · doi:10.4274/dir.2024.242854 · Cited by 168
Metadata
- Authors
- Varoquaux, G., & Cheplygina, V.
- Venue
- npj Digital Medicine
- Published
- 2022-04-12
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 48-48
- ISSN
- 2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4223430324
- Cited by
- 656
- References
- 109
- FWCI
- 27.34
- 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: Machine learning for medical imaging: methodological failures and recommendations for the future. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41746-022-00592-y
- The paper
- Varoquaux, G., & Cheplygina, V. (2022). Machine learning for medical imaging: methodological failures and recommendations for the future. npj Digital Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-022-00592-y
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.
