Using content‐based image retrieval of dermoscopic images for interpretation and education: A pilot study
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
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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