MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408678574 · doi:10.1109/icip.2016.7532807

Gabor barcodes for medical image retrieval

2016· article· en· W2408678574 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Image retrievalBarcodeDiscriminative modelPattern recognition (psychology)Noise (video)Gabor filterImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, advances in medical imaging have led to the emergence of massive databases, containing images from a diverse range of modalities. This has significantly heightened the need for automated annotation of the images on one side, and fast and memory-efficient content-based image retrieval systems on the other side. Binary descriptors have recently gained more attention as a potential vehicle to achieve these goals. One of the recently introduced binary descriptors for tagging of medical images are Radon barcodes (RBCs) that are driven from Radon transform via local thresholding. Gabor transform is also a powerful transform to extract texture-based information. Gabor features have exhibited robustness against rotation, scale, and also photometric disturbances, such as illumination changes and image noise in many applications. This paper introduces Gabor Barcodes (GBCs), as a novel framework for the image annotation. To find the most discriminative GBC for a given query image, the effects of employing Gabor filters with different parameters, i.e., different sets of scales and orientations, are investigated, resulting in different barcode lengths and retrieval performances. The proposed method has been evaluated on the IRMA dataset with 193 classes comprising of 12,677 x-ray images for indexing, and 1,733 x-rays images for testing. A total error score as low as 351 (≈ 80% accuracy for the first hit) was achieved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207