Background & Motivation: Biomedical image segmentation (BIS) task is challenging due to the variations in organ types, position, shape, size, scale, orientation, and image contrast. Conventional methods lack accurate and automated designs. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based UNet has recently dominated BIS. This is the first review of its kind that microscopically addressed UNet types by complexity, stratification of UNet by its components, addressing UNet in vascular vs . non-vascular framework, the key to segmentation challenge vs . UNet-based architecture, and finally interfacing the three facets of AI, the pruning, the explainable AI (XAI), and the AI-bias. Methods: PRISMA was used to select 267 UNet-based studies. Five classes were identified and labeled as conventional UNet, superior UNet, attention-channel UNet, hybrid UNet, and ensemble UNet. We discovered 81 variations of UNet by considering six kinds of components, namely encoder, decoder, skip connection, bridge network, loss function, and their combination. Vascular vs. non-vascular UNet architecture was compared. AP(ai)Bias 2.0-UNet was identified in these UNet classes based on (i) attributes of UNet architecture and its performance, (ii) explainable AI (XAI), and, (iii) pruning (compression). Five bias methods such as (i) ranking, (ii) radial, (iii) regional area, (iv) PROBAST, and (v) ROBINS-I were applied and compared using a Venn diagram. Findings and Conclusions: Vascular and non-vascular UNet systems dominated with sUNet classes with attention. The majority of the studies suffered from low interest in XAI and pruning strategies. None of the UNet models qualified to be bias-free. There is a need to move from paper-to-practice paradigms for clinical evaluation and settings.

SARS-CoV-2 has infected over ∼165 million people worldwide causing Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) and has killed ∼3.4 million people. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has shown to benefit in the biomedical image such as X-ray/Computed Tomography in diagnosis of ARDS, but there are limited AI-based systematic reviews (aiSR). The purpose of this study is to understand the Risk-of-Bias (RoB) in a non-randomized AI trial for handling ARDS using novel AtheroPoint-AI-Bias (AP(ai)Bias). Our hypothesis for acceptance of a study to be in low RoB must have a mean score of 80% in a study. Using the PRISMA model, 42 best AI studies were analyzed to understand the RoB. Using the AP(ai)Bias paradigm, the top 19 studies were then chosen using the raw-cutoff of 1.9. This was obtained using the intersection of the cumulative plot of “mean score vs. study” and score distribution. Finally, these studies were benchmarked against ROBINS-I and PROBAST paradigm. Our observation showed that AP(ai)Bias, ROBINS-I, and PROBAST had only 32%, 16%, and 26% studies, respectively in low-moderate RoB (cutoff>2.5), however none of them met the RoB hypothesis. Further, the aiSR analysis recommends six primary and six secondary recommendations for the non-randomized AI for ARDS. The primary recommendations for improvement in AI-based ARDS design inclusive of (i) comorbidity, (ii) inter-and intra-observer variability studies, (iii) large data size, (iv) clinical validation, (v) granularity of COVID-19 risk, and (vi) cross-modality scientific validation. The AI is an important component for diagnosis of ARDS and the recommendations must be followed to lower the RoB.

Background and Purpose: Only 1–2% of the internal carotid artery asymptomatic plaques are unstable as a result of >80% stenosis. Thus, unnecessary efforts can be saved if these plaques can be characterized and classified into symptomatic and asymptomatic using non-invasive B-mode ultrasound. Earlier plaque tissue characterization (PTC) methods were machine learning (ML)-based, which used hand-crafted features that yielded lower accuracy and unreliability. The proposed study shows the role of transfer learning (TL)-based deep learning models for PTC. Methods: As pertained weights were used in the supercomputer framework, we hypothesize that transfer learning (TL) provides improved performance compared with deep learning. We applied 11 kinds of artificial intelligence (AI) models, 10 of them were augmented and optimized using TL approaches—a class of Atheromatic™ 2.0 _TL (AtheroPoint™, Roseville, CA, USA) that consisted of (i–ii) Visual Geometric Group-16, 19 (VGG16, 19); (iii) Inception V3 (IV3); (iv–v) DenseNet121, 169; (vi) XceptionNet; (vii) ResNet50; (viii) MobileNet; (ix) AlexNet; (x) SqueezeNet; and one DL-based (xi) SuriNet-derived from UNet. We benchmark 11 AI models against our earlier deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) model. Results: The best performing TL was MobileNet, with accuracy and area-under-the-curve (AUC) pairs of 96.10 ± 3% and 0.961 (p < 0.0001), respectively. In DL, DCNN was comparable to SuriNet, with an accuracy of 95.66% and 92.7 ± 5.66%, and an AUC of 0.956 (p < 0.0001) and 0.927 (p < 0.0001), respectively. We validated the performance of the AI architectures with established biomarkers such as greyscale median (GSM), fractal dimension (FD), higher-order spectra (HOS), and visual heatmaps. We benchmarked against previously developed Atheromatic™ 1.0 _ML and showed an improvement of 12.9%. Conclusions: TL is a powerful AI tool for PTC into symptomatic and asymptomatic plaques.

Background: The previous COVID-19 lung diagnosis system lacks both scientific validation and the role of explainable artificial intelligence (AI) for understanding lesion localization. This study presents a cloud-based explainable AI, the “COVLIAS 2.0-cXAI” system using four kinds of class activation maps (CAM) models. Methodology: Our cohort consisted of ~6000 CT slices from two sources (Croatia, 80 COVID-19 patients and Italy, 15 control patients). COVLIAS 2.0-cXAI design consisted of three stages: (i) automated lung segmentation using hybrid deep learning ResNet-UNet model by automatic adjustment of Hounsfield units, hyperparameter optimization, and parallel and distributed training, (ii) classification using three kinds of DenseNet (DN) models (DN-121, DN-169, DN-201), and (iii) validation using four kinds of CAM visualization techniques: gradient-weighted class activation mapping (Grad-CAM), Grad-CAM++, score-weighted CAM (Score-CAM), and FasterScore-CAM. The COVLIAS 2.0-cXAI was validated by three trained senior radiologists for its stability and reliability. The Friedman test was also performed on the scores of the three radiologists. Results: The ResNet-UNet segmentation model resulted in dice similarity of 0.96, Jaccard index of 0.93, a correlation coefficient of 0.99, with a figure-of-merit of 95.99%, while the classifier accuracies for the three DN nets (DN-121, DN-169, and DN-201) were 98%, 98%, and 99% with a loss of ~0.003, ~0.0025, and ~0.002 using 50 epochs, respectively. The mean AUC for all three DN models was 0.99 (p < 0.0001). The COVLIAS 2.0-cXAI showed 80% scans for mean alignment index (MAI) between heatmaps and gold standard, a score of four out of five, establishing the system for clinical settings. Conclusions: The COVLIAS 2.0-cXAI successfully showed a cloud-based explainable AI system for lesion localization in lung CT scans.

Background and motivation: Lung computed tomography (CT) techniques are high-resolution and are well adopted in the intensive care unit (ICU) for COVID-19 disease control classification. Most artificial intelligence (AI) systems do not undergo generalization and are typically overfitted. Such trained AI systems are not practical for clinical settings and therefore do not give accurate results when executed on unseen data sets. We hypothesize that ensemble deep learning (EDL) is superior to deep transfer learning (TL) in both non-augmented and augmented frameworks. Methodology: The system consists of a cascade of quality control, ResNet–UNet-based hybrid deep learning for lung segmentation, and seven models using TL-based classification followed by five types of EDL’s. To prove our hypothesis, five different kinds of data combinations (DC) were designed using a combination of two multicenter cohorts—Croatia (80 COVID) and Italy (72 COVID and 30 controls)—leading to 12,000 CT slices. As part of generalization, the system was tested on unseen data and statistically tested for reliability/stability. Results: Using the K5 (80:20) cross-validation protocol on the balanced and augmented dataset, the five DC datasets improved TL mean accuracy by 3.32%, 6.56%, 12.96%, 47.1%, and 2.78%, respectively. The five EDL systems showed improvements in accuracy of 2.12%, 5.78%, 6.72%, 32.05%, and 2.40%, thus validating our hypothesis. All statistical tests proved positive for reliability and stability. Conclusion: EDL showed superior performance to TL systems for both (a) unbalanced and unaugmented and (b) balanced and augmented datasets for both (i) seen and (ii) unseen paradigms, validating both our hypotheses.