A Guide to Cross-Validation for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging
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
Artificial intelligence (AI) is being increasingly used to automate and improve technologies within the field of medical imaging. A critical step in the development of an AI algorithm is estimating its prediction error through cross-validation (CV). The use of CV can help prevent overoptimism in AI algorithms and can mitigate certain biases associated with hyperparameter tuning and algorithm selection. This article introduces the principles of CV and provides a practical guide on the use of CV for AI algorithm development in medical imaging. Different CV techniques are described, as well as their advantages and disadvantages under different scenarios. Common pitfalls in prediction error estimation and guidance on how to avoid them are also discussed. Keywords: Education, Research Design, Technical Aspects, Statistics, Supervised Learning, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2023
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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