Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data augmentation is a widely used and effective technique to improve the generalization performance of deep neural networks. Yet, despite often facing limited data availability when working with medical images, it is frequently underutilized. This appears to come from a gap in our collective understanding of the efficacy of different augmentation techniques across different tasks and modalities. One modality where this is especially true is ultrasound imaging. This work addresses this gap by analyzing the effectiveness of different augmentation techniques at improving model performance across a wide range of ultrasound image analysis tasks. To achieve this, we introduce a new standardized benchmark of 14 ultrasound image classification and semantic segmentation tasks from 10 different sources and covering 11 body regions. Our results demonstrate that many of the augmentations commonly used for tasks on natural images are also effective on ultrasound images, even more so than augmentations developed specifically for ultrasound images in some cases. We also show that diverse augmentation using TrivialAugment, which is widely used for natural images, is also effective for ultrasound images. Moreover, our proposed methodology represents a structured approach for assessing various data augmentations that can be applied to other contexts and modalities.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".