Rethinking Generalization: The Impact of Annotation Style on Medical Image Segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generalization is an important attribute of machine learning models, particularly for those that are to be deployed in a medical context, where unreliable predictions can have real world consequences. While the failure of models to generalize across datasets is typically attributed to a mismatch in the data distributions, performance gaps are often a consequence of biases in the "ground-truth" label annotations. This is particularly important in the context of medical image segmentation of pathological structures (e.g. lesions), where the annotation process is much more subjective, and affected by a number underlying factors, including the annotation protocol, rater education/experience, and clinical aims, among others. In this paper, we show that modeling annotation biases, rather than ignoring them, poses a promising way of accounting for differences in annotation style across datasets. To this end, we propose a generalized conditioning framework to (1) learn and account for different annotation styles across multiple datasets using a single model, (2) identify similar annotation styles across different datasets in order to permit their effective aggregation, and (3) fine-tune a fully trained model to a new annotation style with just a few samples. Next, we present an image-conditioning approach to model annotation styles that correlate with specific image features, potentially enabling detection biases to be more easily identified.
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 | 0.035 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".