PreprintCited by 392COVID-19 diagnosis using AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

CheXpert: A Large Chest Radiograph Dataset with Uncertainty Labels and Expert Comparison

Open access
Irvin, Jeremy, Rajpurkar, Pranav, Ko, Michael, Yu, Yifan, Ciurea-Ilcus, Silviana, Chute, Chris, Marklund, Henrik, Haghgoo, Behzad +12 more·2019·arXiv

Abstract

Large, labeled datasets have driven deep learning methods to achieve expert-level performance on a variety of medical imaging tasks. We present CheXpert, a large dataset that contains 224,316 chest radiographs of 65,240 patients. We design a labeler to automatically detect the presence of 14 observations in radiology reports, capturing uncertainties inherent in radiograph interpretation. We investigate different approaches to using the uncertainty labels for training convolutional neural networks that output the probability of these observations given the available frontal and lateral radiographs. On a validation set of 200 chest radiographic studies which were manually annotated by 3 board-certified radiologists, we find that different uncertainty approaches are useful for different pathologies. We then evaluate our best model on a test set composed of 500 chest radiographic studies annotated by a consensus of 5 board-certified radiologists, and compare the performance of our model to that of 3 additional radiologists in the detection of 5 selected pathologies. On Cardiomegaly, Edema, and Pleural Effusion, the model ROC and PR curves lie above all 3 radiologist operating points. We release the dataset to the public as a standard benchmark to evaluate performance of chest radiograph interpretation models. The dataset is freely available at https://stanfordmlgroup.github.io/competitions/chexpert .

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1901.07031

Cites

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 choice of information extraction schema, such as the 14 medical conditions proposed by Irvin et al., limits the amount of information extracted from reports.

    “First, the choice of information extraction schema, such as the 14 medical conditions proposed by Irvin et al. [2], limits the amount of information extracted from reports.”

    From RadGraph: Extracting Clinical Entities and Relations from Radiology Reports (2021) · cites this paper as Irvin et al. [2]

    In Data Collection and Label Selection, Irvin et al. say they selected 14 observations for extraction from radiology reports. Mention Aggregation specifies that these comprise 12 pathologies plus “Support Devices” and “No Finding,” so the citing sentence is accurate about a 14-item extraction schema but not about all 14 being medical conditions. The broader point about limits on extracted information is the citing authors’ inference. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The test dataset was sampled as 50 radiology reports from MIMIC-CXR and 50 radiology reports from CheXpert.

    “We sample 50 radiology reports from the MIMIC-CXR dataset and 50 radiology reports from the CheXpert dataset [2] for our test dataset in order to test generalization of approaches across institutions.”

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Benjamini, Y., and Hochberg, Y. 1995. Controlling the false dis- covery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the royal statistical society. Series B (Methodological) 289-300.
  2. Bird, S.; Klein, E.; and Loper, E. 2009. Natural language process- ing with Python: analyzing text with the natural language toolkit. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.".
  3. Charniak, E., and Johnson, M. 2005. Coarse-to-fine n-best parsing and maxent discriminative reranking. In Proceedings of the 43rd annual meeting on association for computational linguistics, 173- 180. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  4. De Marneffe, M.-C.; Dozat, T.; Silveira, N.; Haverinen, K.; Gin- ter, F.; Nivre, J.; and Manning, C. D. 2014. Universal stanford dependencies: A cross-linguistic typology. In LREC, volume 14, 4585-4592.
  5. DeLong, E. R.; DeLong, D. M.; and Clarke-Pearson, D. L. 1988. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver oper- ating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 837-845.
  6. Demner-Fushman, D.; Kohli, M. D.; Rosenman, M. B.; Shooshan, S. E.; Rodriguez, L.; Antani, S.; Thoma, G. R.; and McDonald, C. J. 2015. Preparing a collection of radiology examinations for distribution and retrieval. Journal of the American Medical Infor- matics Association 23(2):304-310.
  7. Gohagan, J. K.; Prorok, P. C.; Hayes, R. B.; and Kramer, B.-S. 2000. The prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (plco) cancer screening trial of the national cancer institute: history, organiza- tion, and status. Controlled clinical trials 21(6):251S-272S.
  8. Graham, J. W. 2009. Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual review of psychology 60:549-576.
  9. Guan, Q.; Huang, Y.; Zhong, Z.; Zheng, Z.; Zheng, L.; and Yang, Y. 2018. Diagnose like a radiologist: Attention guided convolutional neural network for thorax disease classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.09927. · arXiv
  10. Gulshan, V.; Peng, L.; Coram, M.; Stumpe, M. C.; Wu, D.; Narayanaswamy, A.; Venugopalan, S.; Widner, K.; Madams, T.; Cuadros, J.; et al. 2016. Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for detection of diabetic retinopathy in retinal fundus photographs. Jama 316(22):2402-2410.
  11. Hansell, D. M.; Bankier, A. A.; MacMahon, H.; McLoud, T. C.; Muller, N. L.; and Remy, J. 2008. Fleischner society: glossary of terms for thoracic imaging. Radiology 246(3):697-722.
  12. Hinton, G.; Vinyals, O.; and Dean, J. 2015. Distilling the knowl- edge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531. · arXiv
  13. Kumar, P.; Grewal, M.; and Srivastava, M. M. 2018. Boosted cas- caded convnets for multilabel classification of thoracic diseases in chest radiographs. In International Conference Image Analysis and Recognition, 546-552. Springer.
  14. Li, Y.; Yang, J.; Song, Y.; Cao, L.; Luo, J.; and Li, L.-J. 2017a. Learning from noisy labels with distillation. In ICCV, 1928-1936.
  15. Li, Z.; Wang, C.; Han, M.; Xue, Y.; Wei, W.; Li, L.-J.; and Li, F.-F. 2017b. Thoracic disease identification and localization with limited supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.06373. · arXiv
  16. Peng, Y.; Wang, X.; Lu, L.; Bagheri, M.; Summers, R.; and Lu, Z. 2018. Negbio: a high-performance tool for negation and uncer- tainty detection in radiology reports. AMIA Summits on Transla- tional Science Proceedings 2017:188.
  17. Platt, J., et al. 1999. Probabilistic outputs for support vector ma- chines and comparisons to regularized likelihood methods. Ad- vances in large margin classifiers 10(3):61-74.
  18. Radosavovic, I.; Dollár, P.; Girshick, R.; Gkioxari, G.; and He, K. 2017. Data distillation: Towards omni-supervised learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.04440. · arXiv
  19. Rajpurkar, P.; Irvin, J.; Zhu, K.; Yang, B.; Mehta, H.; Duan, T.; Ding, D.; Bagul, A.; Langlotz, C.; Shpanskaya, K.; Lungren, M. P.; and Ng, A. Y. 2017. CheXNet: Radiologist-Level Pneumonia De- tection on Chest X-Rays with Deep Learning. arXiv:1711.05225 [cs, stat]. arXiv: 1711.05225. · arXiv
  20. Rubin, J.; Sanghavi, D.; Zhao, C.; Lee, K.; Qadir, A.; and Xu- Wilson, M. 2018. Large scale automated reading of frontal and lateral chest x-rays using dual convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.07839. · arXiv
  21. Selvaraju, R. R.; Das, A.; Vedantam, R.; Cogswell, M.; Parikh, D.; and Batra, D. 2016. Grad-cam: Why did you say that? visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. CoRR, abs/1610.02391 · arXiv
  22. Steyerberg, E. W. 2008. Clinical prediction models: a practical ap- proach to development, validation, and updating. Springer Science & Business Media.
  23. Sun, X., and Xu, W. 2014. Fast implementation of delong's algorithm for comparing the areas under correlated receiver op- erating characteristic curves. IEEE Signal Processing Letters 21(11):1389-1393.
  24. Wang, X.; Peng, Y.; Lu, L.; Lu, Z.; Bagheri, M.; and Summers, R. M. 2017. ChestX-Ray8: Hospital-Scale Chest X-Ray Database and Benchmarks on Weakly-Supervised Classification and Local- ization of Common Thorax Diseases. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 3462-3471.
  25. Wang, X.; Peng, Y.; Lu, L.; Lu, Z.; and Summers, R. M. 2018. Tienet: Text-image embedding network for common thorax dis- ease classification and reporting in chest x-rays. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, 9049-9058.
  26. Wu, B.; Lyu, S.; Hu, B.-G.; and Ji, Q. 2015. Multi-label learn- ing with missing labels for image annotation and facial action unit recognition. Pattern Recognition 48(7):2279-2289.
  27. Yao, L.; Poblenz, E.; Dagunts, D.; Covington, B.; Bernard, D.; and Lyman, K. 2017. Learning to diagnose from scratch by exploiting dependencies among labels. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10501. · arXiv
  28. Yao, L.; Prosky, J.; Poblenz, E.; Covington, B.; and Lyman, K. 2018. Weakly supervised medical diagnosis and localization from multiple resolutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.07703. · arXiv
  29. Yarowsky, D. 1995. Unsupervised word sense disambiguation rivaling supervised methods. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, 189-196. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  30. Zadrozny, B., and Elkan, C. 2002. Transforming classifier scores into accurate multiclass probability estimates. In Proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, 694-699. ACM.
  31. Zhu, X. 2006. Semi-supervised learning literature survey. Com- puter Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison 2(3):4.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Irvin, J., Rajpurkar, P., Ko, M., Yu, Y., Ciurea-Ilcus, S., Chute, C., Marklund, H., Haghgoo, B., Ball, R., Shpanskaya, K., Seekins, J., Mong, D. A., Halabi, S. S., Sandberg, J. K., Jones, R., Larson, D. B., Langlotz, C. P., Patel, B. N., Lungren, M. P., & Ng, A. Y.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
Volume
33
Issue
01
Pages
590-597
ISSN
2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2904183610
Cited by
392
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 10
FWCI
82.52
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
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
CheXpert, chest radiograph, radiology report annotation, radiologist comparison, convolutional neural networks, cardiomegaly detection, benchmark dataset

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