This evaluation probes a model's ability to classify chest X-rays as COVID-19 positive or negative using a cross-modal distillation setup where CT images are only used during training. It specifically tests the robustness of transfer learning under extremely small, patient-level paired cohorts and prevalence-heavy validation splits. Use when the user wants to benchmark on COVID-19 Image Data Collection, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Accuracy.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill covid19-xray-classification-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Covid19 Xray Classification Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-covid19-xray-classification-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: covid19-xray-classification-eval
description: This evaluation probes a model's ability to classify chest X-rays as COVID-19 positive or negative using a cross-modal distillation setup where CT images are only used during training. It specifically tests the robustness of transfer learning under extremely small, patient-level paired cohorts and prevalence-heavy validation splits. Use when the user wants to benchmark on COVID-19 Image Data Collection, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Accuracy.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2603.29167
bibtex_key: ma2026cttoxraydistillation
confidence: high
---
# covid19-xray-classification-eval
> CT-to-X-ray Distillation Under Tiny Paired Cohorts: An Evidence-Bounded Reproducible Pilot Study — Bo Ma et al. (2026) (arXiv:2603.29167, 2026)
## What this evaluates
This evaluation probes a model's ability to classify chest X-rays as COVID-19 positive or negative using a cross-modal distillation setup where CT images are only used during training. It specifically tests the robustness of transfer learning under extremely small, patient-level paired cohorts and prevalence-heavy validation splits.
## Datasets
- **COVID-19 Image Data Collection** — total 783; splits: train (628), val (155)
## Metrics
- `Accuracy` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Fraction of correctly classified instances out of the total validation set. Computed as (TP+TN)/(TP+TN+FP+FN).
- `Macro-F1` — range: [0, 1]
- Unweighted mean of recall or precision for each class, averaged across the two classes (COVID-19 and non-COVID).
- `Balanced Accuracy` — range: [0, 1]
- Average of recall obtained on each class, computed as (TPR+TNR)/2, which mitigates class imbalance effects.
- `Specificity` — range: [0, 1]
- True negative rate, calculated as TN/(TN+FP). Measures the proportion of actual negatives correctly identified.
- `MCC` — range: [-1, 1]
- Matthews Correlation Coefficient, a correlation coefficient between observed and predicted binary classifications. Ranges from -1 to +1, with +1 representing perfect prediction.
- `PR-AUC` — range: [0, 1]
- Area under the Precision-Recall curve, computed by integrating precision over recall thresholds. Particularly informative for imbalanced datasets.
## Input / output format
**Input**: 128×128 grayscale chest X-ray images. For cross-modal experiments, CT images are provided only during teacher training, not at inference.
**Output**: Binary class label (COVID-19 vs. non-COVID) or probability scores for the positive class.
## Scoring recipe
```python
import numpy as np
from sklearn.metrics import accuracy_score, f1_score, balanced_accuracy_score, specificity_score, matthews_corrcoef, precision_recall_curve, auc
def compute_metrics(y_true, y_pred, y_prob=None):
acc = accuracy_score(y_true, y_pred)
macro_f1 = f1_score(y_true, y_pred, average='macro')
bal_acc = balanced_accuracy_score(y_true, y_pred)
spec = specificity_score(y_true, y_pred)
mcc = matthews_corrcoef(y_true, y_pred)
if y_prob is not None:
prec, rec, _ = precision_recall_curve(y_true, y_prob)
pr_auc = auc(rec, prec)
else:
pr_auc = np.nan
return {'Accuracy': acc, 'Macro-F1': macro_f1, 'Balanced Accuracy': bal_acc,
'Specificity': spec, 'MCC': mcc, 'PR-AUC': pr_auc}
```
## Common pitfalls
- Validation splits are extremely small (4 images in the fixed split, 5–10 per Monte Carlo resample), making bootstrap confidence intervals and paired significance tests numerically unreliable.
- Splits are heavily prevalence-heavy with only one negative validation patient per resample, which artificially inflates accuracy and necessitates balanced accuracy, specificity, and MCC for fair assessment.
- Results are highly unstable across random seeds and resampling runs; single-run rankings or mean differences should not be interpreted as definitive performance claims.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> The headline table intentionally keeps one non-paired reference row and then separates the shared paired fixed split below it. That paired fixed split contains only four validation patients and four X-ray images (three positive, one negative), so we keep the main-text table focused on accuracy, macro-F1, and balanced accuracy rather than on threshold-sensitive secondary metrics.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{ma2026cttoxraydistillation,
title={CT-to-X-ray Distillation Under Tiny Paired Cohorts: An Evidence-Bounded Reproducible Pilot Study},
author={Bo Ma et al. (2026)},
year={2026},
note={arXiv:2603.29167}
}
```
- arXiv: 2603.29167
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!