Local Mesh Patterns Versus Local Binary Patterns: Biomedical Image Indexing and Retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a new image indexing and retrieval algorithm using local mesh patterns are proposed for biomedical image retrieval application. The standard local binary pattern encodes the relationship between the referenced pixel and its surrounding neighbors, whereas the proposed method encodes the relationship among the surrounding neighbors for a given referenced pixel in an image. The possible relationships among the surrounding neighbors are depending on the number of neighbors, P. In addition, the effectiveness of our algorithm is confirmed by combining it with the Gabor transform. To prove the effectiveness of our algorithm, three experiments have been carried out on three different biomedical image databases. Out of which two are meant for computer tomography (CT) and one for magnetic resonance (MR) image retrieval. It is further mentioned that the database considered for three experiments are OASIS-MRI database, NEMA-CT database, and VIA/I-ELCAP database which includes region of interest CT images. The results after being investigated show a significant improvement in terms of their evaluation measures as compared to LBP, LBP with Gabor transform, and other spatial and transform domain methods.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".