BMAD: Benchmarks for Medical Anomaly Detection
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
Anomaly detection (AD) is a fundamental research problem in machine learning and computer vision, with practical applications in industrial inspection, video surveillance, and medical diagnosis. In the field of medical imaging, AD plays a crucial role in identifying anomalies that may indicate rare diseases or conditions. However, despite its importance, there is currently a lack of a universal and fair benchmark for evaluating AD methods on medical images, which hinders the development of more generalized and robust AD methods in this specific domain. To address this gap, we present a comprehensive evaluation benchmark for assessing AD methods on medical images. This benchmark consists of six reorganized datasets from five medical domains (i.e. brain MRI, liver CT, retinal OCT, chest X-ray, and digital histopathology) and three key evaluation metrics, and includes a total of fifteen state-of-the-art AD algorithms. This standardized and well-curated medical benchmark with the well-structured codebase enables researchers to easily compare and evaluate different AD methods, and ultimately leads to the development of more effective and robust AD algorithms for medical imaging. More information on BMAD is available in our GitHub repository: https://github.com/DorisBao/BMAD<sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup>
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it