Med-ImageTools: An open-source Python package for robust data processing pipelines and curating medical imaging data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Machine learning and AI promise to revolutionize the way we leverage medical imaging data for improving care but require large datasets to train computational models that can be implemented in clinical practice. However, processing large and complex medical imaging datasets remains an open challenge. Methods To address this issue, we developed Med-ImageTools, a new Python open-source software package to automate data curation and processing while allowing researchers to share their data processing configurations more easily, lowering the barrier for other researchers to reproduce published works. Use cases We have demonstrated the efficiency of Med-ImageTools across three different datasets, resulting in significantly reduced processing times. Conclusions The AutoPipeline feature will improve the accessibility of raw clinical datasets on public archives, such as the Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA), the largest public repository of cancer imaging, allowing machine learning researchers to process analysis-ready formats without requiring deep domain knowledge.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.125 | 0.072 |
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".