Mine yOur owN Anatomy: Revisiting Medical Image Segmentation With Extremely Limited Labels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies on contrastive learning have achieved remarkable performance solely by leveraging few labels in the context of medical image segmentation. Existing methods mainly focus on instance discrimination and invariant mapping (i.e., pulling positive samples closer and negative samples apart in the feature space). However, they face three common pitfalls: (1) tailness: medical image data usually follows an implicit long-tail class distribution. Blindly leveraging all pixels in training hence can lead to the data imbalance issues, and cause deteriorated performance; (2) consistency: it remains unclear whether a segmentation model has learned meaningful and yet consistent anatomical features due to the intra-class variations between different anatomical features; and (3) diversity: the intra-slice correlations within the entire dataset have received significantly less attention. This motivates us to seek a principled approach for strategically making use of the dataset itself to discover similar yet distinct samples from different anatomical views. In this paper, we introduce a novel semi-supervised 2D medical image segmentation framework termed Mine yOur owNAnatomy (MONA), and make three contributions. First, prior work argues that every pixel equally matters to the model training; we observe empirically that this alone is unlikely to define meaningful anatomical features, mainly due to lacking the supervision signal. We show two simple solutions towards learning invariances-through the use of stronger data augmentations and nearest neighbors. Second, we construct a set of objectives that encourage the model to be capable of decomposing medical images into a collection of anatomical features in an unsupervised manner. Lastly, we both empirically and theoretically, demonstrate the efficacy of our MONA on three benchmark datasets with different labeled settings, achieving new state-of-the-art under different labeled semi-supervised settings. MONA makes minimal assumptions on domain expertise, and hence constitutes a practical and versatile solution in medical image analysis. We provide the PyTorch-like pseudo-code in supplementary.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".