Image collection and annotation platforms to establish a multi‐source database of oral lesions
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
Abstract Objective To describe the development of a platform for image collection and annotation that resulted in a multi‐sourced international image dataset of oral lesions to facilitate the development of automated lesion classification algorithms. Materials and Methods We developed a web‐interface, hosted on a web server to collect oral lesions images from international partners. Further, we developed a customised annotation tool, also a web‐interface for systematic annotation of images to build a rich clinically labelled dataset. We evaluated the sensitivities comparing referral decisions through the annotation process with the clinical diagnosis of the lesions. Results The image repository hosts 2474 images of oral lesions consisting of oral cancer, oral potentially malignant disorders and other oral lesions that were collected through MeMoSA ® UPLOAD. Eight‐hundred images were annotated by seven oral medicine specialists on MeMoSA ® ANNOTATE, to mark the lesion and to collect clinical labels. The sensitivity in referral decision for all lesions that required a referral for cancer management/surveillance was moderate to high depending on the type of lesion (64.3%–100%). Conclusion This is the first description of a database with clinically labelled oral lesions. This database could accelerate the improvement of AI algorithms that can promote the early detection of high‐risk oral lesions.
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 | 0.000 | 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