Using content‐based image retrieval of dermoscopic images for interpretation and education: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dermoscopic content-based image retrieval (CBIR) systems provide a set of visually similar dermoscopic (magnified and illuminated) skin images with a pathology-confirmed diagnosis for a given dermoscopic query image of a skin lesion. Although recent advances in machine learning have spurred novel CBIR algorithms, we have few insights into how end users interact with CBIRs and to what extent CBIRs can be useful for education and image interpretation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed an interactive user interface for a CBIR system with dermoscopic images as a decision support tool and investigated users' interactions and decisions with the system. We performed a pilot experiment with 14 non-medically trained users for a given set of annotated dermoscopic images. RESULTS: Our pilot showed that the number of correct classifications and users' confidence levels significantly increased with the CBIR interface compared with a non-CBIR interface, although the timing also increased significantly. The users found the CBIR interface of high educational value, engaging and easy to use. CONCLUSION: Overall, users became more accurate, found the CBIR approach provided a useful decision aid, and had educational value for learning about skin conditions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".