Automatic detection of anatomical regions in frontal x-ray images: comparing convolutional neural networks to random forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most algorithms to detect and identify anatomical structures in medical images require either to be initialized close to the target structure, or to know that the structure is present in the image, or to be trained on a homogeneous database (e.g. all full body or all lower limbs). Detecting these structures when there is no guarantee that the structure is present in the image, or when the image database is heterogeneous (mixed configurations), is a challenge for automatic algorithms. In this work we compared two state-of-the-art machine learning techniques in order to determine which one is the most appropriate for predicting targets locations based on image patches. By knowing the position of thirteen landmarks points, labelled by an expert in EOS frontal radiography, we learn the displacement between salient points detected in the image and these thirteen landmarks. The learning step is carried out with a machine learning approach by exploring two methods: Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and Random Forest (RF). The automatic detection of the thirteen landmarks points in a new image is then obtained by averaging the positions of each one of these thirteen landmarks estimated from all the salient points in the new image. We respectively obtain for CNN and RF, an average prediction error (both mean and standard deviation in mm) of 29 ±18 and 30 ± 21 for the thirteen landmarks points, indicating the approximate location of anatomical regions. On the other hand, the learning time is 9 days for CNN versus 80 minutes for RF. We provide a comparison of the results between the two machine learning approaches.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".