Skip to main content
. 2023 Mar 29;36(4):1332–1347. doi: 10.1007/s10278-023-00801-4

Table 3.

Comparisons of AUROCs among different models

CoAtNet-0-rw EfficientNet-b5 Baseline (ResNet50) Baseline (ResNet50)
Labels LWBCE Lours LWBCE Lours LWBCE Lours LWBCE – Previous study [8]#
AUROC AUROC AUROC AUROC AUROC AUROC AUROC
  Atelectasis 0.795 0.833 0.795 0.812 0.776 0.791 0.707
  Cardiomegaly 0.901 0.914 0.906 0.905 0.908 0.890 0.814
  Consolidation 0.787 0.809 0.798 0.802 0.786 0.788
  Edema 0.903 0.912 0.905 0.908 0.898 0.899
  Effusion 0.874 0.890 0.872 0.882 0.867 0.878 0.736
  Emphysema 0.927 0.940 0.906 0.912 0.872 0.871
  Fibrosis 0.826 0.835 0.805 0.807 0.790 0.788
  Hernia 0.865 0.791 0.826 0.837 0.847 0.768
  Infiltration 0.686 0.715 0.699 0.712 0.688 0.705 0.613
  Mass 0.827 0.856 0.827 0.832 0.819 0.823 0.561
  Nodule 0.748 0.779 0.745 0.755 0.722 0.718 0.716
  Pleural_Thickening 0.804 0.819 0.810 0.810 0.789 0.790
  Pneumonia 0.751 0.789 0.736 0.774 0.733 0.733 0.633
  Pneumothorax 0.870 0.902 0.878 0.886 0.857 0.859 0.789
Overall* 0.826 ± 0.018 (0.786, 0.866) 0.842 ± 0.017 (0.805, 0.879)a 0.822 ± 0.018 (0.784, 0.860) 0.831 ± 0.016 (0.796, 0.866)b 0.811 ± 0.018 (0.772, 0.850) 0.807 ± 0.017 (0.770, 0.844) 0.696 ± 0.031 (0.623, 0.769)c
Pearson correlation with the positive sample ratiod in the test set −0.517 −0.385 −0.421 −0.432 −0.442 −0.269 −0.260
  p value 0.058 0.174 0.134 0.123 0.113 0.352 0.534

aThere are significant differences when compared with ResNet50 + LWBCE (p = 0.037), ResNet50 + Lours (p < 0.001), and results of ResNet50 + LWBCE in previous studies (p = 0.017)

bThere are significant differences when compared with ResNet50 + LWBCE (p = 0.004), ResNet50 + Lours (p = 0.004), and results of ResNet50 + LWBCE in previous studies (p = 0.028)

cThere are significant differences compared to the other six models (p ≤ 0.006)

dThe positive sample ratio was calculated by the count of positive samples over the total sample size. All statistical analyses were performed using repeated measures ANOVA tests with Bonferroni adjustments

#In this previous study, only 8 labels were involved

*Data were presented as mean ± standard error (95% confidence interval)