We recently expanded our public AI performance dashboard from four metrics to eleven for each of our 89+ classifiers. That is a lot of numbers. And if you are like most veterinary professionals, you did not go to vet school to interpret ROC curves.

But these metrics directly affect how you use AI screening results in your clinical decisions. When an AI report flags cardiomegaly or rules out pleural effusion, the metrics behind that classifier tell you how much weight to give the result. Understanding a few key numbers can change how confidently you act on what the AI is telling you.

Here is what each metric means, in plain language, with real examples from our published data.

REAL EXAMPLE

Our Heart Failure (Canine) classifier has 89.5% sensitivity and 92.1% specificity.

That means it catches about 9 out of 10 true heart failure cases, and when it says the heart looks normal, it is right about 92% of the time.

Sensitivity and specificity describe how the AI performs in controlled testing. But when you are looking at a patient’s results, the question you are actually asking is different: “The AI flagged this finding. Should I believe it?”

That is where PPV and NPV come in.

REAL EXAMPLE

Our Heart Failure (Canine) classifier has 89.5% Sensitivity and 92.1% Specificity, with a PPV of 11.9% and an NPV of 99.9%. That looks lopsided, and it is supposed to.

Heart failure has a prevalence of about 1.2% in our clinical database. So when the AI flags it, there is roughly a 1 in 8 chance the condition is truly present, which is still a significant increase from the baseline 1 in 83 rate. A PPV notably higher than the underlying prevalence indicates the model is providing real predictive power beyond random guessing. When it says “no heart failure,” you can be very confident.

How much PPV is clinically useful is ultimately a question for clinicians, and should be an ongoing discussion point as we continue to retrain and improve our models.

The clinical takeaway: a positive flag for a rare condition is a signal to look more closely, not a diagnosis. A negative result is a strong reassurance.

REAL EXAMPLE

Our Cardiomegaly (Canine) classifier has a Radiologist Agreement Rate of 93%. That means even board-certified radiologists disagree about 7% of the time on this finding.

The AI’s sensitivity of 75.6% and specificity of 86.3% should be understood in that context.

The remaining metrics are primarily used by data scientists and statisticians to evaluate classifier quality. They are published for completeness and for those who want the full picture.

You do not need to memorize these metrics. But the next time you review an AI screening report, three quick checks can change how you use the results:

1. Check the NPV for negative results. For most conditions, the NPV is 99%+. When the AI says “not present,” you can move on with confidence.
2. Check the prevalence for positive flags. A positive flag on a rare condition (prevalence under 2%) is a signal to investigate further, not a confirmation. A positive flag on a common condition (prevalence above 10%) carries more weight.
3. Check the Radiologist Agreement Rate for borderline calls. If specialists disagree 20% of the time on a finding, an AI result in the gray zone is reflecting genuine clinical ambiguity, not a system failure.

The full metrics for all 89+ classifiers are published at vetology.net/ai-classifier-performance. We publish them because informed trust is better than blind trust, and veterinary professionals deserve the data to make their own judgment calls.

Written by – Benjamin Cote, Data Scientist | Vetology

As part of Vetology’s push to be transparent about our AI products, we recently published all of our condition classifiers on our website (find them here if you haven’t taken a look yet: AI Classifier Performance). Since we want you to be able to see how each of our models performs and draw your own conclusions, this article is designed to provide you with some extra knowledge and context to interpret our metrics.

On the AI Condition Classifier Performance Metrics page, we include several key metrics on each of our conditions. For the purposes of this article, we will focus on: Sensitivity, Specificity, Radiologist Agreement Rate, and Number of Test Cases. Each measure is a piece of the classifier puzzle, and by understanding the ways they interact, you can see the bigger picture come together. We’ll cover additional metrics in future articles. 

Front and center on each published classifier, you can see the Sensitivity and Specificity scores achieved by that model. These are both common metrics used in data science to measure model performance, and at Vetology they are the primary way we determine if a model is strong enough to be released.

They can be thought of as a pair, each capturing the same information but on different classes of data. You can think of them as a see-saw: A model that predicts every case as positive would have 100% Sensitivity (but 0% Specificity), and a model that predicts every case as negative would have 100% Specificity (but 0% Sensitivity), and neither would be useful. We want to get Sensitivity and Specificity as high as possible, so the challenge is how to get each metric to improve without harming the other.

When Sensitivity is high, the model correctly recognizes what a given disease looks like. It’s as if the model is telling us: “I know what heart failure looks like, and that is heart failure.”

One way to improve Sensitivity is by training the model on more examples that are positive for the condition so it understands the variation within a disease across many different breeds, and sizes.

When Specificity is high, the model can correctly distinguish between a given disease and all other diseases, as if the model is telling us: “I don’t know what that is, but I know that is not an example of heart failure.”

One way to improve Specificity is by training the model on more images that are negative for the condition so it understands what kinds of information are unrelated to this disease. For instance, if we are trying to identify pulmonary nodules, the size and shape of the heart are unlikely to help us make our diagnosis. Instead, we want enough data that our classifier can isolate findings related to pulmonary nodules and ignore irrelevant visual information. That way when key findings aren’t present, the classifier will confidently predict that a disease isn’t present.

When viewed together, you can get an estimate of how well a model performs when predicting on Positives (Sensitivity) and Negatives (Specificity). However, when forced to choose between prioritizing model Sensitivity or Specificity, we tend to prioritize Specificity. This is because our models are trained on many more negative images than positives.

We train on mismatched proportions because even the most common diseases only occur in a small percentage of cases; this imbalance ensures that we don’t over-predict the presence of diseases. A consequence of this is that Sensitivity and Specificity percentages are calculated on differently-sized classes, and a 1% increase in Specificity usually means a greater increase in total model accuracy than a 1% increase in Sensitivity.

The math behind these metrics is not especially complicated, but there are some nuances that require more context. If you want to learn more about how we calculate Sensitivity and Specificity, look at the In-Depth Calculation section at the end of this article.

We calculate the Radiologist Agreement Rate by comparing the labels that expert radiologists provide on a blind set of shared images. Among this set of Positive and Negative images, we calculate the number of cases the radiologists agreed on out of the total number of cases they reviewed. Regardless of whether they agreed a case is Negative or Positive, so long as the radiologists make the same decision on an image we consider it an agreement.

Interpreting Radiographs is as much an art as it is a science! Some conditions can be easily diagnosed from radiograph findings, others cannot be. Some conditions are easily visible on a radiograph, others are not. Some conditions look similar to each other, others are completely unique! All that to say, it’s understandable why two expert radiologists may disagree when diagnosing the same patient. It also stands to reason that if a condition is hard for an expert radiologist to interpret from radiograph scans, our classifier may also have trouble consistently identifying a disease.

Low Agreement Rate

If the radiologist agreement rate is low, this means a condition is hard for radiologists to reliably diagnose. This is a place where our models often shine.

• With extremely rare conditions, a clinician or radiologist may encounter it only a handful of times over the course of their career.
  • In contrast, our models are trained on hundreds or thousands of examples, so our sensitivity and specificity metrics can often surpass radiologist agreement rates.
  • Through the aggregation of clinical examples globally, these models can help you feel confident in recognizing rare findings.
• Other times, agreement rate is low because a disease is hard for radiologists to determine visually.
  • Our models may struggle with these conditions too. Sometimes they can pick up on patterns too minuscule for the human eye to see, but other times it’s just as hard for the neural network to come to a conclusion.
  • When this is the case, our models may have low sensitivity and specificity scores that mirror low radiologist agreement rate.

High Agreement Rate

If the radiologist agreement rate is high, it means that this condition is easier for radiologists to reliably diagnose.

• This could be because the disease presents consistently on radiographs, because it is easy to identify, or because a particular finding unambiguously indicates that disease.
  • When the agreement rate is high, model performance also tends to be high because the neural network is picking up on the same visual patterns as the radiologists.
• However, you’ll notice that some model performance metrics don’t match their high radiologist agreement rate.
  • This is something we take seriously—we want every model to perform just as well if not better than the agreement rate so you can be confident in our predictions.

The number of evaluated cases shows the number of unique cases we used to test that particular classifier and generate our Sensitivity and Specificity metrics.

For example, the Canine Thorax condition Heart Failure Left has 10,951 total test cases, which means our performance metrics come from generating model predictions on 10,951 unique sets of radiographs, all from different dogs.

This number includes both the Positive cases where a disease is present, and the Negative cases. However, just because a case is labeled as Negative, that doesn’t always mean the animal is healthy – in fact, we make sure our set of Negative examples includes cases with a variety of other findings or diseases within the body region, just one of which is a “healthy” finding.

What Can You Learn from Test Case Counts?

As the number of test cases grows, so does the variation in examples our model is tested against. Each case introduces a unique combination of animal size, age, scan quality, and number of diseases present or absent. When a condition is tested on large quantities of data and has high Sensitivity and Specificity performance, you can feel certain that the model is robust enough to find the disease in animals of any size; it can handle any curveball case you throw at it.

Assessing the performance of a disease classifier can be tricky. Sometimes it’s unclear what a metric represents, or how to compare across models. It can also be difficult to interpret when a classifier is performing well because you have to consider not only its Sensitivity and Specificity scores, but also the Radiologist Agreement Rate.

If Sensitivity and Specificity are both around 70% and the Radiologist Agreement Rate is 63%, then it’s a strong model that can pick up on details that even expert radiologists may not see. However, if a model with those same scores had a Radiologist Agreement Rate of 85%, then the model would be significantly underperforming. Everything is relative, and at Vetology we have to consider how all our metrics interact before we publish new condition classifiers.

Now that you have an idea of what these metrics mean, take a look at our classifier results. Transparency means you can be part of this process. Notice the great work we’ve done, but also notice the areas we need to work on. With our monthly bundle releases, we are constantly increasing performance of existing models and adding coverage through new disease classifiers. So please, check back in soon and see where we’ve made our latest improvements.