LNDb v4: pulmonary nodule annotation from medical reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the high prevalence of lung cancer, an accurate diagnosis is crucial. In the diagnosis process, radiologists play an important role by examining numerous radiology exams to identify different types of nodules. To aid the clinicians' analytical efforts, computer-aided diagnosis can streamline the process of identifying pulmonary nodules. For this purpose, medical reports can serve as valuable sources for automatically retrieving image annotations. Our study focused on converting medical reports into nodule annotations, matching textual information with manually annotated data from the Lung Nodule Database (LNDb)-a comprehensive repository of lung scans and nodule annotations. As a result of this study, we have released a tabular data file containing information from 292 medical reports in the LNDb, along with files detailing nodule characteristics and corresponding matches to the manually annotated data. The objective is to enable further research studies in lung cancer by bridging the gap between existing reports and additional manual annotations that may be collected, thereby fostering discussions about the advantages and disadvantages between these two data types.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".