Cited by 38COVID-19 diagnosis using AIMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Five Strategies for Bias Estimation in Artificial Intelligence-based Hybrid Deep Learning for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome COVID-19 Lung Infected Patients using AP(ai)Bias 2.0: A Systematic Review

Open access
Suri, Jasjit S., Agarwal, Sushant, Jena, Biswajit, Saxena, Sanjay, El-Baz, Ayman, Agarwal, Vikas, Kalra, Mannudeep K., Saba, Luca +3 more·2024·IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement

Abstract

Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) has led to a global pandemic infecting 224 million people and has caused 4.6 million deaths. Nearly 80 Artificial Intelligence (AI) articles have been published on COVID-19 diagnosis. The first systematic review on the Deep Learning (DL)-based paradigm for COVID-19 diagnosis was recently published by Suri et al. [IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2021]. The above study used AtheroPoint’s “AP(ai)Bias 1.0” using 10 AI attributes in the DL framework. The proposed study uses “AP(ai)Bias 2.0” as part of the three quantitative paradigms for Risk-of-Bias quantification by using the best 40 dedicated Hybrid DL (HDL) studies and utilizing 39 AI attributes. In the first method, the radial-bias map (RBM) was computed for each AI study, followed by the computation of bias value. In the second method, the regional-bias area (RBA) was computed by the area difference between the best and the worst AI performing attributes. In the third method, ranking-bias score (RBS) was computed, where AI-based cumulative scores were computed for all the 40 studies. These studies were ranked, and the cutoff was determined, categorizing the HDL studies into three bins: low, moderate, and high. Using the Venn diagram, these three quantitative methods were benchmarked against the two qualitative non-randomized-based AI trial methods (ROBINS-I and PROBAST). Using the analytically derived moderate-high and low-moderate cutoff of 2.9 and 3.6, respectively, we observed 40%, 27.5%, 17.5%, 10%, and 20% of studies were low-biased for RBM, RBA, RBS, ROBINS-I, and PROBAST, respectively. We present an eight-point recommendation for AP(ai)Bias 2.0 minimization.

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 · 10.1109/tim.2022.3174270

Cites

81 of 81 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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. A. M. Alqudah, S. Qazan, H. Alquran, I. A. Qasmieh, and A. Alqudah, "Covid-2019 detection using x-ray images and artificial intelligence hybrid systems," vol. 2, no. 16077.59362, p. 1, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG. · DOI
  2. E.-S. M. El-Kenawy, A. Ibrahim, S. Mirjalili, M. M. Eid, and S. E. Hussein, "Novel feature selection and voting classifier algorithms for COVID-19 classification in CT images," IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 179317-179335, 2020.
  3. Y.-H. Wu et al., "Jcs: An explainable covid-19 diagnosis system by joint classification and segmentation," vol. 30, pp. 3113-3126, 2021.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Suri, J. S., Agarwal, S., Jena, B., Saxena, S., El-Baz, A., Agarwal, V., Kalra, M. K., Saba, L., Viskovic, K., Fatemi, M., & Naidu, S.
Affiliations
  • Stroke Diagnosis and Monitoring Division, AtheroPoint™, Roseville, CA, USA.
  • Advanced Knowledge Engineering Centre, Global Biomedical Technologies, Inc., Roseville, CA, USA and Dept. of CSE, PSIT, Kanpur, UP, INDIA.
  • International Institute of Information Technology (IN)
  • University of Louisville (US)
  • Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (IN)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • University of Cagliari (IT)
  • University Hospital for Infectious Diseases, Zagreb, CROATIA.
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • University of Minnesota, Duluth (US)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement
Published
2024
Pages
1-1
ISSN
  • 0018-9456 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9662
OpenAlex
W4285176431
Cited by
38
References
81
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9
FWCI
1.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement (publishedVersion)
  • UNICA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Cagliari) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › COVID-19 diagnosis using AI
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
bias estimation, artificial intelligence, hybrid deep learning model, COVID-19 diagnosis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, risk of bias, ROBINS-I, PROBAST, bias mitigation

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