Enhancing Annotation Efficiency with Machine Learning: Automated Partitioning of a Lung Ultrasound Dataset by View
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Annotating large medical imaging datasets is an arduous and expensive task, especially when the datasets in question are not organized according to deep learning goals. Here, we propose a method that exploits the hierarchical organization of annotating tasks to optimize efficiency. METHODS: We trained a machine learning model to accurately distinguish between one of two classes of lung ultrasound (LUS) views using 2908 clips from a larger dataset. Partitioning the remaining dataset by view would reduce downstream labelling efforts by enabling annotators to focus on annotating pathological features specific to each view. RESULTS: In a sample view-specific annotation task, we found that automatically partitioning a 780-clip dataset by view saved 42 min of manual annotation time and resulted in 55±6 additional relevant labels per hour. CONCLUSIONS: Automatic partitioning of a LUS dataset by view significantly increases annotator efficiency, resulting in higher throughput relevant to the annotating task at hand. The strategy described in this work can be applied to other hierarchical annotation schemes.
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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".