Ten quick tips for computational analysis of medical images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical imaging is a great asset for modern medicine, since it allows physicians to spatially interrogate a disease site, resulting in precise intervention for diagnosis and treatment, and to observe particular aspect of patients' conditions that otherwise would not be noticeable. Computational analysis of medical images, moreover, can allow the discovery of disease patterns and correlations among cohorts of patients with the same disease, thus suggesting common causes or providing useful information for better therapies and cures. Machine learning and deep learning applied to medical images, in particular, have produced new, unprecedented results that can pave the way to advanced frontiers of medical discoveries. While computational analysis of medical images has become easier, however, the possibility to make mistakes or generate inflated or misleading results has become easier, too, hindering reproducibility and deployment. In this article, we provide ten quick tips to perform computational analysis of medical images avoiding common mistakes and pitfalls that we noticed in multiple studies in the past. We believe our ten guidelines, if taken into practice, can help the computational-medical imaging community to perform better scientific research that eventually can have a positive impact on the lives of patients worldwide.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".