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 . 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 | |
| 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 |