MinMax Radon Barcodes for Medical Image Retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Content-based medical image retrieval can support diagnostic decisions by clinical experts. Examining similar images may provide clues to the expert to remove uncertainties in his/her final diagnosis. Beyond conventional feature descriptors, binary features in different ways have been recently proposed to encode the image content. A recent proposal is "Radon barcodes" that employ binarized Radon projections to tag/annotate medical images with content-based binary vectors, called barcodes. In this paper, MinMax Radon barcodes are introduced which are superior to "local thresholding" scheme suggested in the literature. Using IRMA dataset with 14,410 x-ray images from 193 different classes, the advantage of using MinMax Radon barcodes over \emph{thresholded} Radon barcodes are demonstrated. The retrieval error for direct search drops by more than 15\%. As well, SURF, as a well-established non-binary approach, and BRISK, as a recent binary method are examined to compare their results with MinMax Radon barcodes when retrieving images from IRMA dataset. The results demonstrate that MinMax Radon barcodes are faster and more accurate when applied on IRMA images.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".