MF‐Re‐Rank: A modality feature‐based Re‐Ranking model for medical image retrieval
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the main challenges in medical image retrieval is the increasing volume of image data, which render it difficult for domain experts to find relevant information from large data sets. Effective and efficient medical image retrieval systems are required to better manage medical image information. Text‐based image retrieval (TBIR) was very successful in retrieving images with textual descriptions. Several TBIR approaches rely on models based on bag‐of‐words approaches, in which the image retrieval problem turns into one of standard text‐based information retrieval; where the meanings and values of specific medical entities in the text and metadata are ignored in the image representation and retrieval process. However, we believe that TBIR should extract specific medical entities and terms and then exploit these elements to achieve better image retrieval results. Therefore, we propose a novel reranking method based on medical‐image‐dependent features. These features are manually selected by a medical expert from imaging modalities and medical terminology. First, we represent queries and images using only medical‐image‐dependent features such as image modality and image scale. Second, we exploit the defined features in a new reranking method for medical image retrieval. Our motivation is the large influence of image modality in medical image retrieval and its impact on image‐relevance scores. To evaluate our approach, we performed a series of experiments on the medical ImageCLEF data sets from 2009 to 2013. The BM25 model, a language model, and an image‐relevance feedback model are used as baselines to evaluate our approach. The experimental results show that compared to the BM25 model, the proposed model significantly enhances image retrieval performance. We also compared our approach with other state‐of‐the‐art approaches and show that our approach performs comparably to those of the top three runs in the official ImageCLEF competition.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it