Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Apr 4.
Published in final edited form as: Inform Med Unlocked. 2021 Apr 20;24:100571. doi: 10.1016/j.imu.2021.100571

Table 5.

Performance of homogeneous CXR target tasks using the proposed method and the baseline. Recall that we used three strategies to fine-tune the heads attached to UMS-RepCXRDenoising. Bold values indicate best performance.

Method Tuning Strategy Target Task Accuracy F-score MCC
Independent Classification (Bacterial vs Normal) 0.95 0.95 0.90
Alternating Classification (Bacterial vs Normal) 0.96 0.96 0.92
Joint Classification (Bacterial vs Normal) 0.96 0.95 0.91
Independent Classification (Viral vs Normal) 0.95 0.92 0.88
UMS-RepCXRDenoising Alternating Classification (Viral vs Normal) 0.96 0.93 0.90
Joint Classification (Viral vs Normal) 0.97 0.94 0.92
Independent Classification (Bacterial vs Viral) 0.81 0.76 0.56
Alternating Classification (Bacterial vs Viral) 0.82 0.77 0.58
Joint Classification (Bacterial vs Viral) 0.83 0.80 0.62
Baseline Separate Model Classification (Bacterial vs Normal) 0.94 0.94 0.89
Separate Model Classification (Viral vs Normal) 0.93 0.90 0.86
Separate Model Classification (Bacterial vs Viral) 0.80 0.75 0.54