Investigating Shift Variance of Convolutional Neural Networks in Ultrasound Image Segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While accuracy is an evident criterion for ultrasound image segmentation, output consistency across different tests is equally crucial for tracking changes in regions of interest in applications such as monitoring the patients' response to treatment, measuring the progression or regression of the disease, reaching a diagnosis, or treatment planning. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have attracted rapidly growing interest in automatic ultrasound image segmentation recently. However, CNNs are not shift-equivariant, meaning that, if the input translates, e.g., in the lateral direction by one pixel, the output segmentation may drastically change. To the best of our knowledge, this problem has not been studied in ultrasound image segmentation or even more broadly in ultrasound images. Herein, we investigate and quantify the shift-variance problem of CNNs in this application and further evaluate the performance of a recently published technique, called BlurPooling, for addressing the problem. In addition, we propose the Pyramidal BlurPooling method that outperforms BlurPooling in both output consistency and segmentation accuracy. Finally, we demonstrate that data augmentation is not a replacement for the proposed method. Source code is available at http://code.sonography.ai.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".