Securing the Diagnosis of Medical Imaging: An In-depth Analysis of AI-Resistant Attacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Machine learning (ML) is a rapidly developing area of medicine that uses significant resources to apply computer science and statistics to medical issues. ML's proponents laud its capacity to handle vast, complicated, and erratic medical data. It's common knowledge that attackers might cause misclassification by deliberately creating inputs for machine learning classifiers. Research on adversarial examples has been extensively conducted in the field of computer vision applications. Healthcare systems are thought to be highly difficult because of the security and life-or-death considerations they include, and performance accuracy is very important. Recent arguments have suggested that adversarial attacks could be made against medical image analysis (MedIA) technologies because of the accompanying technology infrastructure and powerful financial incentives. Since the diagnosis will be the basis for important decisions, it is essential to assess how strong medical DNN tasks are against adversarial attacks. Simple adversarial attacks have been taken into account in several earlier studies. However, DNNs are susceptible to more risky and realistic attacks. The present paper covers recent proposed adversarial attack strategies against DNNs for medical imaging as well as countermeasures. In this study, we review current techniques for adversarial imaging attacks, detections. It also encompasses various facets of these techniques and offers suggestions for the robustness of neural networks to be improved in the future.
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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".