Cited by 1,044COVID-19 diagnosis using AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 99 of the 99 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Common pitfalls and recommendations for using machine learning to detect and prognosticate for COVID-19 using chest radiographs and CT scans

Open access
Roberts, Michael, Driggs, Derek, Thorpe, Matthew, Gilbey, Julian, Yeung, Michael, Ursprung, Stephan, Aviles-Rivero, Angelica I., Etmann, Christian, McCague, Cathal, Beer, Lucian, Weir-McCall, Jonathan R., Teng, Zhongzhao, Gkrania-Klotsas, Effrossyni, AIX-COVNET, Ruggiero, Alessandro, Korhonen, Anna, Jefferson, Emily, Ako, Emmanuel, Langs, Georg, Gozaliasl, Ghassem, Yang, Guang, Prosch, Helmut, Preller, Jacobus, Stanczuk, Jan, Tang, Jing, Hofmanninger, Johannes, Babar, Judith, Sánchez, Lorena Escudero, Thillai, Muhunthan, Gonzalez, Paula Martin, Teare, Philip, Zhu, Xiaoxiang, Patel, Mishal, Cafolla, Conor, Azadbakht, Hojjat, Jacob, Joseph, Lowe, Josh, Zhang, Kang, Bradley, Kyle, Wassin, Marcel, Holzer, Markus, Ji, Kangyu, Ortet, Maria Delgado, Ai, Tao, Walton, Nicholas, Lio, Pietro, Stranks, Samuel, Shadbahr, Tolou, Lin, Weizhe, Zha, Yunfei, Niu, Zhangming, Rudd, James H. F., Sala, Evis, Schönlieb, Carola-Bibiane·2021·Nature Machine Intelligence

Abstract

Abstract Machine learning methods offer great promise for fast and accurate detection and prognostication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from standard-of-care chest radiographs (CXR) and chest computed tomography (CT) images. Many articles have been published in 2020 describing new machine learning-based models for both of these tasks, but it is unclear which are of potential clinical utility. In this systematic review, we consider all published papers and preprints, for the period from 1 January 2020 to 3 October 2020, which describe new machine learning models for the diagnosis or prognosis of COVID-19 from CXR or CT images. All manuscripts uploaded to bioRxiv, medRxiv and arXiv along with all entries in EMBASE and MEDLINE in this timeframe are considered. Our search identified 2,212 studies, of which 415 were included after initial screening and, after quality screening, 62 studies were included in this systematic review. Our review finds that none of the models identified are of potential clinical use due to methodological flaws and/or underlying biases. This is a major weakness, given the urgency with which validated COVID-19 models are needed. To address this, we give many recommendations which, if followed, will solve these issues and lead to higher-quality model development and well-documented manuscripts.

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 · 10.1038/s42256-021-00307-0

Cites

99 of 99 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

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.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Wong, H. Y. F. et al. Frequency and distribution of chest radiographic findings in COVID-19 positive patients. Radiology 296, 201160 (2019).
  2. Bassi, P. R. A. S. & Attux, R. A deep convolutional neural network for COVID-19 detection using chest X-rays. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.01578 (2020). · arXiv
  3. Amyar, A., Modzelewski, R. & Ruan, S. Multi-task deep learning based CT imaging analysis for COVID-19: classification and segmentation. Preprint at medRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.2006470 (2020). · DOI
  4. Goodfellow, I. J. et al. Generative adversarial nets. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Vol. 2 2672–2680 (MIT Press, 2014).
  5. Zhang, C., Bengio, S., Hardt, M., Recht, B. & Vinyals, O. Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalization. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations ICLR 2017 (ICLR, 2017).
  6. Covidence Systematic Review Software v2486 6284093b (Veritas Health Innovation, 2020); https://www.covidence.org/
  7. Aviles-Rivero, A. I., Sellars, P., Schönlieb, C.-B. & Papadakis, N. GraphXCOVID: explainable deep graph diffusion pseudo-labelling for identifying COVID-19 on chest X-rays. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.00378 (2020). · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,044

Metadata

Authors
Roberts, M., Driggs, D., Thorpe, M., Gilbey, J., Yeung, M., Ursprung, S., Aviles-Rivero, A. I., Etmann, C., McCague, C., Beer, L., Weir-McCall, J. R., Teng, Z., Gkrania-Klotsas, E., AIX-COVNET, Ruggiero, A., Korhonen, A., Jefferson, E., Ako, E., Langs, G., Gozaliasl, G., Yang, G., Prosch, H., Preller, J., Stanczuk, J., Tang, J., Hofmanninger, J., Babar, J., Sánchez, L. E., Thillai, M., Gonzalez, P. M., Teare, P., Zhu, X., Patel, M., Cafolla, C., Azadbakht, H., Jacob, J., Lowe, J., Zhang, K., Bradley, K., Wassin, M., Holzer, M., Ji, K., Ortet, M. D., Ai, T., Walton, N., Lio, P., Stranks, S., Shadbahr, T., Lin, W., Zha, Y., Niu, Z., Rudd, J. H. F., Sala, E., & Schönlieb, C.-B.
Affiliations
  • AstraZeneca (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Royal Papworth Hospital (GB)
  • University of Dundee (GB)
  • Royal Brompton Hospital (GB)
  • Medical University of Vienna (AT)
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Boehringer Ingelheim (Germany) (DE)
  • Addenbrooke's Hospital (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Macau University of Science and Technology (MO)
  • Tongji Hospital (CN)
  • Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University (CN)
Corresponding author
Roberts, Michael
Venue
Nature Machine Intelligence
Published
2021-03-15
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
199-217
ISSN
2522-5839 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3119527628
Cited by
1,044
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 203 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 143 · 2023: 248 · 2022: 224 · 2021: 130
FWCI
98.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Machine Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • elib (German Aerospace Center) (acceptedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • AstraZeneca
  • European Commission (777826)
  • Medical Research Council (1966157, MR/S010351/1)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/T017961/1, EP/N014588/1, EP/S026045/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › COVID-19 diagnosis using AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, machine learning, chest radiograph, chest CT, COVID-19 detection, outcome prediction, clinical utility, model validation, methodological errors, bias, research recommendations

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