Towards A Better Performance for Medical Image Retrieval Using An Integrated Approach.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose an integrated approach for medical image retrieval. In particular, we present a series of experiments in medical image retrieval task. There are three main goals for our participation of this task. First, we will test traditional well-known weighting models used in text retrieval domain, such as BM25, TFIDF and Language Model (LM), for context-based image retrieval. Second, we will evaluate statistical-based feedback models and ontology-based feedback models. Third, we will investigate how content-based image retrieval can be integrated with these two basic technologies of traditional text retrieval. The experimental results have shown that 1) traditional weighting models can work well in context-based medical image retrieval task especially when the parameters are tuned properly; 2) statistical-based feedback models can improve the retrieval performance when a small number of documents are used; however, the medical image retrieval can not benefit from ontology-based query expansion; 3) the retrieval performance can be slightly boosted by integrating content features.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".