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 accessAbstract
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.
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Much of the current evidence is based on retrospective analyses with limited prospective validation [19,28].”
From Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Decision-Making: A Comprehensive Review of Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Applications, Validation Gaps, Bias, and Deployment Challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [28]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The success of deep learning in computer vision (CV) analysis has significantly advanced its clinical applications in comprehending biomedical images, including CT scans [88], positron emission tomography (PET)-CT scans [89], whole-slide images (WSIs) [90], and MRI scans [91].”
From Challenges in AI-driven Biomedical Multimodal Data Fusion and Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [88]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Based on this study, we suggest that such a gold rush may give rise to un-engaged 'augmentation' which is highly risky from a learning and knowledge perspective for experts, AI companies, and consumers.”
From To Engage or Not to Engage with AI for Critical Judgments: How Professionals Deal with Opacity When Using AI for Medical Diagnosis (2022) · cites this paper as Roberts et al. 2021
In the citing paper
“Despite problems like the one discovered by Roberts et al. [195], the fact that ML systems process and analyze data differently from human beings can be a great benefit to science and society because these systems may be able to identify useful and innovative structures, properties, patterns, and relationships that human beings would not recognize.”
From The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool (2025) · cites this paper as [195]
In the citing paper
“Differences in image acquisition and processing may result in “shortcuts” where models take cues from non-clinical features.”
From AI pitfalls and what not to do: mitigating bias in AI (2023) · cites this paper as [15]
In the citing paper
“For example, COVID-19 prediction models have been demonstrated to learn which institution the images were obtained from rather than features pertaining to the underlying disease. 15”
From AI pitfalls and what not to do: mitigating bias in AI (2023) · cites this paper as [15]
In the citing paper
“The methodological flaws likely is a reflection of the lack of diversity in the development team to allow clinicians, data analysts and patient advocacy groups to work side-by-side throughout the AI life cycle. 15”
From AI pitfalls and what not to do: mitigating bias in AI (2023) · cites this paper as [15]
In the citing paper
“A similar result is summarized in a systematic review of COVID-19 prediction models on CT scans and Chest X-rays (CXRs) that found limited clinical utility due to methodological flaws and underlying biases stemming from small training data sets, data set variability, and limited integration of non-imaging data, among others.”
From AI pitfalls and what not to do: mitigating bias in AI (2023) · cites this paper as [15]
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
ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database
Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L.-J., Li, K., & Fei-Fei, L. (2009) · 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2009.5206848 · Cited by 65,333
Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision
Szegedy, C., Vanhoucke, V., Ioffe, S., Shlens, J., & Wojna, Z. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.308 · Cited by 32,138
Wang, D., Hu, B., Hu, C., Zhu, F., Liu, X., Zhang, J., Wang, B., Xiang, H., Cheng, Z., Xiong, Y., et al. (2020) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2020.1585 · Cited by 20,148
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700 · Cited by 17,648
EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networks
Tan, M., & Le, Q. V. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.11946 · Cited by 17,072
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M. G., Sterne, J. A. C., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & the QUADAS-2 Group* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 · Cited by 14,199
Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models
Vickers, A. J., & Elkin, E. B. (2006) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x06295361 · Cited by 6,341
Ai, T., Yang, Z., Hou, H., Zhan, C., Chen, C., Lv, W., Tao, Q., Sun, Z., & Xia, L. (2020) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2020200642 · Cited by 5,793
Self-citationRadiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine
Lambin, P., Leijenaar, R. T. H., Deist, T. M., Peerlings, J., de Jong, E. E. C., van Timmeren, J., Sanduleanu, S., Larue, R. T. H. M., Even, A. J. G., Jochems, A., et al. (2017) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.141 · Cited by 5,688
Identifying Medical Diagnoses and Treatable Diseases by Image-Based Deep Learning
Kermany, D. S., Goldbaum, M., Cai, W., Valentim, C. C. S., Liang, H., Baxter, S. L., McKeown, A., Yang, G., Wu, X., Yan, F., et al. (2018) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2018.02.010 · Cited by 4,842
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Wong, H. Y. F. et al. Frequency and distribution of chest radiographic findings in COVID-19 positive patients. Radiology 296, 201160 (2019).
- 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
- 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
- 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).
- 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).
- Covidence Systematic Review Software v2486 6284093b (Veritas Health Innovation, 2020); https://www.covidence.org/
- 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
A guide to machine learning for biologists
Greener, J. G., Kandathil, S. M., Moffat, L., & Jones, D. T. (2022) · Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology · doi:10.1038/s41580-021-00407-0 · Cited by 2,127
Computational approaches streamlining drug discovery
Sadybekov, A., & Katritch, V. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05905-z · Cited by 1,424
“It has been shown that DL models, especially based on limited datasets lacking negative data, are prone to overtraining and spurious performance, sometimes leading to whole classes of models deemed ‘useless’ 88 or severely biased by subjective factors defining the training dataset 89 .”
BackgroundLeakage and the reproducibility crisis in machine-learning-based science
Kapoor, S., & Narayanan, A. (2023) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2023.100804 · Cited by 1,387
Recent advances and clinical applications of deep learning in medical image analysis
Chen, X., Wang, X., Zhang, K., Fung, K.-M. A., Thai, T., Moore, K. N., Mannel, R. S., Liu, H., Zheng, B., & Qiu, Y. (2022) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2022.102444 · Cited by 1,180
Self-citationRedefining Radiology: A Review of Artificial Intelligence Integration in Medical Imaging
Najjar, R. (2023) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics13172760 · Cited by 1,025
“…mathematical mirroring of reality, depends not only on their training datasets and precision but also on calibration in interpreting medical images depends on comprehensive datasets that accurately reflect varied patient demographics, including age, sex, ethnicity, and disease stages [94,95].”
Background
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
- ORCID
- Roberts, Michael
- Thorpe, Matthew
- Gilbey, Julian
- Yeung, Michael
- Ursprung, Stephan
- McCague, Cathal
- Weir-McCall, Jonathan R.
- Gkrania-Klotsas, Effrossyni
- Ako, Emmanuel
- Langs, Georg
- Gozaliasl, Ghassem
- Yang, Guang
- Prosch, Helmut
- Preller, Jacobus
- Azadbakht, Hojjat
- Jacob, Joseph
- Ji, Kangyu
- Walton, Nicholas
- Stranks, Samuel
- Shadbahr, Tolou
- Rudd, James H. F.
- Sala, Evis
- Schönlieb, Carola-Bibiane
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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
