How much off-the-shelf knowledge is transferable from natural images to pathology images?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning has achieved a great success in natural image classification. To overcome data-scarcity in computational pathology, recent studies exploit transfer learning to reuse knowledge gained from natural images in pathology image analysis, aiming to build effective pathology image diagnosis models. Since transferability of knowledge heavily depends on the similarity of the original and target tasks, significant differences in image content and statistics between pathology images and natural images raise the questions: how much knowledge is transferable? Is the transferred information equally contributed by pre-trained layers? If not, is there a sweet spot in transfer learning that balances transferred model's complexity and performance? To answer these questions, this paper proposes a framework to quantify knowledge gain by a particular layer, conducts an empirical investigation in pathology image centered transfer learning, and reports some interesting observations. Particularly, compared to the performance baseline obtained by a random-weight model, though transferability of off-the-shelf representations from deep layers heavily depend on specific pathology image sets, the general representation generated by early layers does convey transferred knowledge in various image classification applications. The trade-off between transferable performance and transferred model's complexity observed in this study encourages further investigation of specific metric and tools to quantify effectiveness of transfer learning in future.
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 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".