MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394761328 · doi:10.1186/s12880-024-01253-0

A survey of the impact of self-supervised pretraining for diagnostic tasks in medical X-ray, CT, MRI, and ultrasound

2024· review· en· W4394761328 on OpenAlexafffund
Blake VanBerlo, Jesse Hoey, Alexander Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Imaging · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningGeneralizationTransfer of learningFeature (linguistics)Supervised learningSegmentationTask (project management)UltrasoundPattern recognition (psychology)MedicineArtificial neural networkRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-supervised pretraining has been observed to be effective at improving feature representations for transfer learning, leveraging large amounts of unlabelled data. This review summarizes recent research into its usage in X-ray, computed tomography, magnetic resonance, and ultrasound imaging, concentrating on studies that compare self-supervised pretraining to fully supervised learning for diagnostic tasks such as classification and segmentation. The most pertinent finding is that self-supervised pretraining generally improves downstream task performance compared to full supervision, most prominently when unlabelled examples greatly outnumber labelled examples. Based on the aggregate evidence, recommendations are provided for practitioners considering using self-supervised learning. Motivated by limitations identified in current research, directions and practices for future study are suggested, such as integrating clinical knowledge with theoretically justified self-supervised learning methods, evaluating on public datasets, growing the modest body of evidence for ultrasound, and characterizing the impact of self-supervised pretraining on generalization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical ImagingSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207