Ranking loss and sequestering learning for reducing image search bias in histopathology
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
Recently, deep learning has started to play an essential role in healthcare applications, including image search in digital pathology. Despite the recent progress in computer vision, significant issues remain for image searching in histopathology archives. A well-known problem is AI bias and lack of generalization. A more particular shortcoming of deep models is the ignorance toward search functionality. The former affects every model, the latter only search and matching. Due to the lack of ranking-based learning, researchers must train models based on the classification error and then use the resultant embedding for image search purposes. Moreover, deep models appear to be prone to internal bias even if using a large image repository of various hospitals. This paper proposes two novel ideas to improve image search performance. First, we use a ranking loss function to guide feature extraction toward the matching-oriented nature of the search. By forcing the model to learn the ranking of matched outputs, the representation learning is customized toward image search instead of learning a class label. Second, we introduce the concept of sequestering learning to enhance the generalization of feature extraction. By excluding the images of the input hospital from the matched outputs, i.e., sequestering the input domain, the institutional bias is reduced. The proposed ideas are implemented and validated through the largest public dataset of whole slide images. The experiments demonstrate superior results compare to the-state-of-art.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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