Transfer Learning for Image Segmentation by Combining Image Weighting and Kernel Learning
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
Many medical image segmentation methods are based on the supervised classification of voxels. Such methods generally perform well when provided with a training set that is representative of the test images to the segment. However, problems may arise when training and test data follow different distributions, for example, due to differences in scanners, scanning protocols, or patient groups. Under such conditions, weighting training images according to distribution similarity have been shown to greatly improve performance. However, this assumes that a part of the training data is representative of the test data; it does not make unrepresentative data more similar. We, therefore, investigate kernel learning as a way to reduce differences between training and test data and explore the added value of kernel learning for image weighting. We also propose a new image weighting method that minimizes maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) between training and test data, which enables the joint optimization of image weights and kernel. Experiments on brain tissue, white matter lesion, and hippocampus segmentation show that both kernel learning and image weighting, when used separately, greatly improve performance on heterogeneous data. Here, MMD weighting obtains similar performance to previously proposed image weighting methods. Combining image weighting and kernel learning, optimized either individually or jointly, can give a small additional improvement in performance.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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