Relevance Feedback as New Tool for Computer-Aided Diagnosis in Image Databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the ever-growing volume of images used in medicine, the capability to retrieve relevant images from large databases is becoming increasingly important. Despite the recent progress made in the field, its applications in Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) thus far have been limited by the ability to determine the intrinsic mapping between high-level user perception and the underlying low-level image features. Relevance Feedback (RFB) is a post-query process to refine the search by using positive and/or negative indications from the user about the relevance of retrieved images, which has been applied successfully in traditional text-retrieval systems for improving the results of a retrieval strategy. In this chapter, the authors review some recent advances in RFB technology, and discuss its expanding role in content-based image retrieval from medical archives. They provide working examples, based on their experience, for developing machine-learning methods for RFB in mammography and highlight the potential opportunities in this field for CAD applications and clinical decision-making.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".