Cited by 103COVID-19 diagnosis using AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm detecting 10 common abnormalities on chest radiographs

Open access
Nam, Ju Gang, Kim, Minchul, Park, Jongchan, Hwang, Eui Jin, Lee, Jong Hyuk, Hong, Jung Hee, Goo, Jin Mo, Park, Chang Min·2021·European Respiratory Journal

Abstract

We aimed to develop a deep learning algorithm detecting 10 common abnormalities (DLAD-10) on chest radiographs, and to evaluate its impact in diagnostic accuracy, timeliness of reporting and workflow efficacy. DLAD-10 was trained with 146 717 radiographs from 108 053 patients using a ResNet34-based neural network with lesion-specific channels for 10 common radiological abnormalities (pneumothorax, mediastinal widening, pneumoperitoneum, nodule/mass, consolidation, pleural effusion, linear atelectasis, fibrosis, calcification and cardiomegaly). For external validation, the performance of DLAD-10 on a same-day computed tomography (CT)-confirmed dataset (normal:abnormal 53:147) and an open-source dataset (PadChest; normal:abnormal 339:334) was compared with that of three radiologists. Separate simulated reading tests were conducted on another dataset adjusted to real-world disease prevalence in the emergency department, consisting of four critical, 52 urgent and 146 nonurgent cases. Six radiologists participated in the simulated reading sessions with and without DLAD-10. DLAD-10 exhibited area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values of 0.895–1.00 in the CT-confirmed dataset and 0.913–0.997 in the PadChest dataset. DLAD-10 correctly classified significantly more critical abnormalities (95.0% (57/60)) than pooled radiologists (84.4% (152/180); p=0.01). In simulated reading tests for emergency department patients, pooled readers detected significantly more critical (70.8% (17/24)versus29.2% (7/24); p=0.006) and urgent (82.7% (258/312)versus78.2% (244/312); p=0.04) abnormalities when aided by DLAD-10. DLAD-10 assistance shortened the mean±sdtime-to-report critical and urgent radiographs (640.5±466.3versus3371.0±1352.5 s and 1840.3±1141.1versus2127.1±1468.2 s, respectively; all p<0.01) and reduced the mean±sdinterpretation time (20.5±22.8versus23.5±23.7 s; p<0.001). DLAD-10 showed excellent performance, improving radiologists' performance and shortening the reporting time for critical and urgent cases.

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 · 10.1183/13993003.03061-2020

Cites

31 of 31 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?

  • The Lee et al. (2022) multimodal model employed a previously validated and CE-approved chest X-ray abnormality detection model (Nam et al., 2021) to infer imaging features from chest X-rays and fused this with clinical and laboratory data to predict prognosis and required interventions for COVID-19 patients.

    “This multimodal model employed a previously validated and CE-approved chest X-ray abnormality detection model (Nam et al., 2021) to infer imaging features from chest X-rays and fused this with clinical and laboratory data to predict prognosis and the required interventions for patients with COVID-19.”

    From Navigating the landscape of multimodal AI in medicine: A scoping review on technical challenges and clinical applications (2025) · cites this paper as Nam et al., 2021

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Nam, J. G., Kim, M., Park, J., Hwang, E. J., Lee, J. H., Hong, J. H., Goo, J. M., & Park, C. M.
Affiliations
  • Seoul National University (KR)
  • Lunit (South Korea) (KR)
Corresponding author
Park, Chang Min
Venue
European Respiratory Journal
Published
2020-11-26
Volume
57
Issue
5
Pages
2003061
ISSN
  • 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3003
OpenAlex
W3107467375
Cited by
103
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 9
FWCI
6.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Respiratory Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Seoul National University Open Repository (Seoul National University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Research Foundation of Korea (grant number: NRF-2018R1A5A1060031)
  • Seoul National University Hospital (grant number: 03-2019-0190)
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
chest radiograph, deep learning, ResNet34, pneumothorax, mediastinal widening, pneumoperitoneum, lung consolidation, pleural effusion, atelectasis, cardiomegaly, fibrosis, emergency department, diagnostic accuracy, reporting timeliness, radiologist performance, clinical workflow
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Algorithms, Humans, Lung Diseases, Radiography, Retrospective Studies, Radiography, Thoracic

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