The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 13 of the 25 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification
Open accessAbstract
We introduce MedMNIST v2 , a large-scale MNIST-like dataset collection of standardized biomedical images, including 12 datasets for 2D and 6 datasets for 3D. All images are pre-processed into a small size of 28 × 28 (2D) or 28 × 28 × 28 (3D) with the corresponding classification labels so that no background knowledge is required for users. Covering primary data modalities in biomedical images, MedMNIST v2 is designed to perform classification on lightweight 2D and 3D images with various dataset scales (from 100 to 100,000) and diverse tasks (binary/multi-class, ordinal regression, and multi-label). The resulting dataset, consisting of 708,069 2D images and 9,998 3D images in total, could support numerous research/educational purposes in biomedical image analysis, computer vision, and machine learning. We benchmark several baseline methods on MedMNIST v2, including 2D/3D neural networks and open-source/commercial AutoML tools. The data and code are publicly available at https://medmnist.com/ .
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
MedMNIST v2 is a standardized MNIST-like benchmark of 12 2D datasets (708,069 images) and 6 3D datasets (9,998 images) for biomedical image classification at 28×28 or 28×28×28. It benchmarks ResNets and AutoML tools, finding ResNets competitive and 3D/ACS convolutions generally better than 2.5D on 3D datasets.
Key findings
- MedMNIST v2 contains 12 2D datasets totaling 708,069 images and 6 3D datasets totaling 9,998 images, all preprocessed to 28×28 (2D) or 28×28×28 (3D), covering binary/multi-class, ordinal regression, and multi-label tasks.
- On MedMNIST2D, Google AutoML Vision achieved the highest average AUC (0.927), close to ResNet-18 (224) (0.925) and ResNet-50 (224) (0.923); ResNets had higher average ACC (0.821 for ResNet-18/50 at 224) than Google AutoML Vision (0.809). auto-sklearn was lowest (average AUC 0.878, ACC 0.722).
- On MedMNIST3D, ResNet-50 + 3D convolution achieved the best average AUC (0.863) and ACC (0.780); ResNet-18 + 3D was 0.849/0.767, auto-sklearn 0.815/0.765, and AutoKeras 0.763/0.737. 2.5D models were inferior to 3D and ACS models.
- Under the same ResNet backbone, 224 resolution generally outperformed 28 on 2D; at 28, ResNet-18 often outperformed ResNet-50. For 3D, 3D and ACS models were comparable, and ResNet-50 with 3D convolution surpassed ResNet-18.
Methods
- Dataset construction: 12 2D and 6 3D datasets from source datasets, preprocessed to MNIST-like sizes via cubic spline interpolation; official splits used where available, otherwise 9:1 train-validation from training or 7:1:2 patient-level random split; labels from source datasets, sometimes simplified.
- Benchmark: ResNet-18/50 with early stopping for 2D (28 or 224 input) and ResNet-18/50 with 2.5D/3D/ACS convolutions for 3D; auto-sklearn, AutoKeras, and Google AutoML Vision (2D only); training used cross-entropy, Adam, batch size 128 for 2D and 32 for 3D, 100 epochs, and learning-rate decay.
- Evaluation: AUC and ACC per dataset and average over MedMNIST2D/MedMNIST3D; each benchmark was repeated at least 3 times.
Limitations
- Stated: the dataset is NOT intended for clinical use; substantially reducing resolution may yield images insufficient to represent and capture different disease pathologies.
- Stated: labels could be simplified (merged or deleted classes) if classification on small images is too difficult.
- Evident from the text: the benchmark focuses on the machine-learning part rather than end-to-end systems; 3D datasets are much smaller (9,998 total) than 2D datasets (708,069), and AdrenalMNIST3D source CT scans are not provided due to patient privacy.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures


Verification
Claims the paper makes
27 No basis given · 16 Own result · 7 Own interpretation · 6 Supported · 4 Own method · 3 Partly supported · 3 Sources not found · 3 No full text of the sources · 1 Supported so far · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The BloodMNIST is based on a dataset26,27 of individual normal cells, captured from individuals without infection, hematologic or oncologic disease and free of any pharmacologic treatment at the moment of blood collection. It contains a total of 17,092 images and is organized into 8 classes.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Methods > Details for MedMNIST2D
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [26] Acevedo, A. et al. A dataset of microscopic peripheral blood cell images for development of automatic recognition systems. Data in Brief 30, 105474, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.105474 (2020). source
The Abstract states that the dataset contains 17,092 images of individual normal cells, organized into eight groups, and describes the donors’ health and treatment criteria. The Data section confirms the image count, eight groups, and pixel dimensions of the images. This paper documents the source dataset identified in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [27] Acevedo, A. et al. A dataset for microscopic peripheral blood cell images for development of automatic recognition systems. Mendeley Data https://doi.org/10.17632/snkd93bnjr.1 (2020). source
plainn = 17,092- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, we provide standard train-validation-test splits for all datasets in MedMNIST v2, therefore algorithms could be easily compared.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Background & Summary
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All images are pre-processed into a small size of 28 × 28 (2D) or 28 × 28 × 28 (3D) with the corresponding classification labels so that no background knowledge is required for users.”
- Also stated in: § Design principles · plain
“All images are pre-processed into a MNIST-like format, i.e., 28 × 28 (2D) or 28 × 28 × 28 (3D), with cubic spline interpolation operation for image resizing.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Resizing biomedical images to 28 × 28 (2D) or 28 × 28 × 28 (3D) preserves sufficient information for meaningful classification.
- Also stated in: § Design principles · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Covering primary data modalities in biomedical images, MedMNIST v2 is designed to perform classification on lightweight 2D and 3D images with various dataset scales (from 100 to 100,000) and diverse tasks (binary/multi-class, ordinal regression, and multi-label).”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Considering the popularity of 3D imaging in biomedical area, we carefully develop 6 3D datasets following the same design principle as 2D ones.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Background & Summary
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As MedMNIST v1 is more medical-oriented, we additionally provide 2 2D bioimage datasets.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Background & Summary
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As an MNIST-like8 dataset collection to perform classification tasks on small images, it primarily focuses on the machine learning part rather than the end-to-end system.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Background & Summary
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [8] LeCun, Y., Cortes, C. & Burges, C. Mnist handwritten digit database. http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/mnist/ (2010).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The resulting dataset, consisting of 708,069 2D images and 9,998 3D images in total, could support numerous research/educational purposes in biomedical image analysis, computer vision, and machine learning.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“2.5D models have poorer performance compared with 3D and ACS models”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Technical Validation > Benchmark on each dataset
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Auto-sklearn is superior to ResNet-18 + 2.5D and ResNet-50 + 2.5D in general”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Technical Validation > Benchmark on each dataset
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 31
- Probably not a substantial claim. 17
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“MedMNIST v2 is extended from our preliminary version, MedMNIST v19, with 10 2D datasets for medical image classification.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Background & Summary
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] Yang, J., Shi, R. & Ni, B. Medmnist classification decathlon: A lightweight automl benchmark for medical image analysis. In International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, 191–195 (2021). source
The Introduction (p. 1) presents MedMNIST as a collection of 10 datasets for classification on 28 × 28 images, and the Dataset section (p. 2) describes those images as 2D. The citation identifies the preliminary MedMNIST collection; this earlier paper need not describe the later v2 extension. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Each subset is saved in NumPy39 npz format, named as <data> mnist.npz for MedMNIST2D and <data> mnist3d.npz for MedMNIST3D, and is comprised of 6 keys (“train_images”, “train_labels”, “val_images”, “val_labels”, “test_images”, “test_labels”).”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Data Records
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [39] Harris, C. R. et al. Array programming with numpy. Nature 585, 357–362 (2020). source
The citation is attached to “NumPy,” identifying the software rather than sourcing the MedMNIST file names or six keys. The Main section describes NumPy as an open-source library providing a multidimensional Python array object, which supports that identification. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The VesselMNIST3D is based on an open-access 3D intracranial aneurysm dataset, IntrA34, containing 103 3D models (meshes) of entire brain vessels collected by reconstructing MRA images. 1,694 healthy vessel segments and 215 aneurysm segments are generated automatically from the complete models.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Methods > Details for MedMNIST3D
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [34] Yang, X., Xia, D., Kin, T. & Igarashi, T. Intra: 3d intracranial aneurysm dataset for deep learning. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2020). source
Section 3.1 (Data) identifies IntrA as a dataset of 103 complete 3D brain-vessel models reconstructed from MRA images. It also reports 1,694 healthy vessel segments and 215 aneurysm segments generated automatically from those models. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The SynapseMNIST3D is a new 3D volume dataset to classify whether a synapse is excitatory or inhibitory. It uses a 3D image volume of an adult rat acquired by a multi-beam scanning electron microscope.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Methods > Details for MedMNIST3D
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [37] Wei, D. et al. Mitoem dataset: Large-scale 3d mitochondria instance segmentation from em images. In Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention, 66–76 (Springer, 2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Dataset Acquisition section (page unavailable) says the adult-rat tissue used for MitoEM-R was imaged with a multi-beam scanning electron microscope. But the Introduction identifies MitoEM as a 3D mitochondria instance-segmentation dataset; our copy does not identify SynapseMNIST3D or describe excitatory-versus-inhibitory synapse classification. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“We use the BBBC05128, available from the Broad Bioimage Benchmark Collection29. The dataset contains 236,386 human kidney cortex cells, segmented from 3 reference tissue specimens and organized into 8 categories.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Methods > Details for MedMNIST2D
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [28] Woloshuk, A. et al. In situ classification of cell types in human kidney tissue using 3d nuclear staining. Cytometry Part A (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Data organization section describes approximately 230,000 nuclei from three reference tissue specimens, and the Results describe eight classification categories and derived 2D datasets. The copy does not give the exact count of 236,386 or identify the dataset as TissueMNIST or BBBC051; it says the dataset would be made available through an online repository such as the Broad Bioimage Benchmark Collection. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Supportedcites [29] Ljosa, V., Sokolnicki, K. L. & Carpenter, A. E. Annotated high-throughput microscopy image sets for validation. Nature methods 9, 637–637 (2012). source
Citation 29 is attached to the Broad Bioimage Benchmark Collection, not to the BBBC051 dataset details. The paper describes the BBBC as a publicly available collection of microscopy image sets and gives its access URL. The dataset-specific figures in the citing sentence are not attributed to this citation. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plainn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The DermaMNIST is based on the HAM1000019–21, a large collection of multi-source dermatoscopic images of common pigmented skin lesions. The dataset consists of 10,015 dermatoscopic images categorized as 7 different diseases, formulized as a multi-class classification task.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Methods > Details for MedMNIST2D
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [19] Tschandl, P., Rosendahl, C. & Kittler, H. The ham10000 dataset, a large collection of multi-source dermatoscopic images of common pigmented skin lesions. Scientific data 5, 180161 (2018). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract reports 10,015 dermatoscopic images, and Methods (“Unifying pathologic diagnoses”) says HAM10000 has seven diagnostic classes intended as a benchmark for classification. The paper does not identify DermaMNIST or establish that DermaMNIST is based on HAM10000, so it supports the underlying dataset description but not that relationship. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] Tschandl, P. The HAM10000 dataset, a large collection of multi-source dermatoscopic images of common pigmented skin lesions. Harvard Dataverse https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/DBW86T (2018). source
- Partly supportedcites [21] Codella, N. et al. Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection 2018: A challenge hosted by the international skin imaging collaboration (isic). Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.03368v2 (2019). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.3 (p. 4) reports 10,015 dermoscopic training images with seven classification labels and cites the HAM10000 paper, identified in the References (p. 8). It does not identify DermaMNIST, establish that DermaMNIST is based on HAM10000, or describe it as a 2D dataset; the 10,015 figure is stated for the challenge’s training set. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The data files of MedMNIST v2 dataset can be accessed at Zenodo38. It contains 12 pre-processed 2D datasets (MedMNIST2D) and 6 pre-processed 3D datasets (MedMNIST3D).”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Data Records
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [38] Yang, J. et al. Medmnist v2: A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2d and 3d biomedical image classification. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5208230 (2021). source
The Abstract states that MedMNIST v2 includes 12 2D and 6 3D datasets, with all images pre-processed. The Zenodo record’s Files section lists the downloadable dataset files, supporting the access claim. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The BreastMNIST is based on a dataset25 of 780 breast ultrasound images. It is categorized into 3 classes: normal, benign, and malignant. As we use low-resolution images, we simplify the task into binary classification by combining normal and benign as positive and classifying them against malignant as negative.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Methods > Details for MedMNIST2D
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [25] Al-Dhabyani, W., Gomaa, M., Khaled, H. & Fahmy, A. Dataset of breast ultrasound images. Data in Brief 28, 104863, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.104863 (2020). source
The Data section reports 780 breast ultrasound images categorized as normal, benign, and malignant, supporting the dataset description for which this source is cited. The binary grouping is described as the citing authors’ own simplification, not as a feature attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The source of the OrganMNIST3D is the same as that of the Organ{A,C,S}MNIST. Instead of 2D images, we directly use the 3D bounding boxes and process the images into 28 × 28 × 28 to perform multi-class classification of 11 body organs.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Methods > Details for MedMNIST3D
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [30] Bilic, P. et al. The liver tumor segmentation benchmark (lits). Medical Image Analysis 84,102680 (2023). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods > Dataset passage describes LiTS as a collection of abdominal CT scans, but does not identify it as the source of OrganMNIST3D or Organ{A,C,S}MNIST. Searches for those dataset names and for 3D bounding boxes, 28 × 28 × 28 images, and classification of 11 organs found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [31] Xu, X. et al. Efficient multiple organ localization in ct image using 3d region proposal network. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 38, 1885–1898 (2019). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The NoduleMNIST3D is based on the LIDC-IDRI32, a large public lung nodule dataset, containing images from thoracic CT scans. The dataset is designed for both lung nodule segmentation and 5-level malignancy classification task. To perform binary classification, we categorize cases with malignancy level 1/2 into negative class and 4/5 into positive class, ignoring the cases with malignancy level 3.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Methods > Details for MedMNIST3D
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [32] Armato, S. G. III et al. The lung image database consortium (lidc) and image database resource initiative (idri): A completed reference database of lung nodules on ct scans. Medical Physics 38, 915–931, https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3528204 (2011). source
The citation is attached to the identification of LIDC-IDRI as a large, public dataset of lung nodules from thoracic CT scans. The paper reports 1018 thoracic CT scans (II.A), describes its nodule annotations (Results), and says the database is publicly available (II.E). The later binary-classification rule is presented as the citing authors’ own procedure, not as a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The MedMNIST v2 dataset consists of 12 2D and 6 3D standardized datasets from carefully selected sources covering primary data modalities (e.g., X-ray, OCT, ultrasound, CT, electron microscope), diverse classification tasks (binary/multi-class, ordinal regression, and multi-label) and dataset scales (from 100 to 100,000).”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Methods > Design principles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The MedMNIST uses the classification labels from the source datasets directly in most cases, but the labels could be simplified (merged or deleted classes) if the classification tasks on the small images are too difficult.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Methods > Design principles
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The classification labels from the source datasets are accurate and suitable for the benchmark tasks.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We introduce MedMNIST v2, a large-scale MNIST-like dataset collection of standardized biomedical images, including 12 datasets for 2D and 6 datasets for 3D.”
- Also stated in: § Background & Summary · plain
“MedMNIST v2 is a large-scale benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification, covering 12 2D datasets with 708,069 images and 6 3D datasets with 9,998 images.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Background & Summary · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All source datasets are either associated with the Creative Commons (CC) Licenses or developed by us, which allows us to develop derivative datasets based on them.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Methods > Design principles
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Covering primary data modalities in biomedical images, MedMNIST v2 is designed to perform classification on lightweight 2D and 3D images with various dataset scales (from 100 to 100,000) and diverse tasks (binary/multi-class, ordinal regression, and multi-label).”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is designed to be:Diverse: It covers diverse data modalities, dataset scales (from 100 to 100,000), and tasks (binary/multi-class, multi-label, and ordinal regression).”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Background & Summary
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Standardized: Each sub-dataset is pre-processed into the same format (see details in Methods), which requires no background knowledge for users.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Background & Summary
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some datasets are under CC-BY-NC license; we have contacted the authors and obtained the permission to re-distribute the datasets.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Methods > Design principles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
““{train,val,test}_labels”: an array containing ground-truth labels, with a shape of N × 1 for multi-class/binary-class/ordinal regression datasets, of N × L for multi-lable binary-class datasets. N denotes the number of samples in training/validation/test set and L denotes the number of task labels in the multi-label dataset (i.e., 14 for the ChestMNIST).”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Data Records
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
““{train,val,test}_images”: an array containing images, with a shape of N × 28 × 28 for 2D gray-scale datasets, of N × 28 × 28 × 3 for 2D RGB datasets, of N × 28 × 28 × 28 for 3D datasets.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Data Records
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The RetinaMNIST is based on the DeepDRiD24 challenge, which provides a dataset of 1,600 retina fundus images. The task is ordinal regression for 5-level grading of diabetic retinopathy severity.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Methods > Details for MedMNIST2D
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [24] DeepDRiD. The 2nd diabetic retinopathy–grading and image quality estimation challenge. https://isbi.deepdr.org/data.html (2020).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The data type of the dataset is uint8.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Data Records
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For 2D datasets, Google AutoML Vision is well-performing in general, however it could not always win, even compared with the baseline ResNet-18 and ResNet-50.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Technical Validation > Benchmark on each dataset
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The OCTMNIST is based on a prior dataset22,23 of 109,309 valid optical coherence tomography (OCT) images for retinal diseases. The dataset is comprised of 4 diagnosis categories, leading to a multi-class classification task.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Methods > Details for MedMNIST2D
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [22] Kermany, D. S. et al. Identifying medical diagnoses and treatable diseases by image-based deep learning. Cell 172, 1122–1131.e9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.02.010 (2018). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] Kermany, D. S., Zhang, K. & Goldbaum, M. Large dataset of labeled optical coherence tomography (oct) and chest x-ray images https://doi.org/10.17632/rscbjbr9sj.3 (2018). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For MedMNIST2D, Google AutoML Vision outperforms all the other methods in average AUC, however, it is very close to the performance of baseline ResNets.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Technical Validation > Benchmark on each dataset
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AutoKeras performs well on datasets with large scales, however relatively worse on datasets with small scale.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Technical Validation > Benchmark on each dataset
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The PneumoniaMNIST is based on a prior dataset22,23 of 5,856 pediatric chest X-Ray images. The task is binary-class classification of pneumonia against normal.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Methods > Details for MedMNIST2D
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [22] Kermany, D. S. et al. Identifying medical diagnoses and treatable diseases by image-based deep learning. Cell 172, 1122–1131.e9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.02.010 (2018). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] Kermany, D. S., Zhang, K. & Goldbaum, M. Large dataset of labeled optical coherence tomography (oct) and chest x-ray images https://doi.org/10.17632/rscbjbr9sj.3 (2018). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The ChestMNIST is based on the NIH-ChestXray14 dataset18, a dataset comprising 112,120 frontal-view X-Ray images of 30,805 unique patients with the text-mined 14 disease labels, which could be formulized as a multi-label binary-class classification task.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Methods > Details for MedMNIST2D
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [18] Wang, X. et al. Chestx-ray8: Hospital-scale chest x-ray database and benchmarks on weakly-supervised classification and localization of common thorax diseases. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 3462–3471 (2017). source
hedgedn = 30,805- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Under the same ResNet backbone, 2.5D models are inferior to 3D and ACS models and perform worse than auto-sklearn and AutoKeras.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Technical Validation > Benchmark on each dataset
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They are sliced before being resized into 1 × 28 × 28.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Technical Validation > Benchmark on each dataset
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since there is no severe class imbalance on our datasets”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Technical Validation > Evaluation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Organ{A,C,S}MNIST and OrganMNIST3D are generated from the same source dataset, and share the same task and the same data split.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Technical Validation > Benchmark on each dataset
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand, OrganMNIST3D is resized into 28 × 28 × 28 directly.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Technical Validation > Benchmark on each dataset
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Organ{A,C,S}MNIST are sampled slices of 3D bounding boxes of 3D CT images in axial/coronal/sagittal views (planes), respectively.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Technical Validation > Benchmark on each dataset
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ResNets surpass auto-sklearn and AutoKeras, and outperform Google AutoML Vision in average ACC.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Technical Validation > Benchmark on each dataset
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All benchmark experiments are repeated at least 3 times for more stable results than in MedMNIST v1.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Background & Summary
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“It is as diverse as the VDD4 and MSD5 to fairly evaluate the generalizable performance of machine learning algorithms in different settings, but both 2D and 3D biomedical images are provided.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Background & Summary
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites VDD4
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites MSD5
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The resulting dataset, consisting of 708,069 2D images and 9,998 3D images in total, could support numerous research/educational purposes in biomedical image analysis, computer vision, and machine learning.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Resizing biomedical images to 28 × 28 (2D) or 28 × 28 × 28 (3D) preserves sufficient information for meaningful classification.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the dataset without an official split, we split the dataset randomly at the patient level with a ratio of 7:1:2 into training-validation-test.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Methods > Design principles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: Patient-level random splitting avoids data leakage for datasets without official splits.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The diverse dataset design could lead to diverse task difficulty, which is desirable as a biomedical image classification benchmark.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Methods > Design principles
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We use the official data split from source dataset (if provided) to avoid data leakage.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Methods > Design principles
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The official data splits from source datasets avoid data leakage.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ACC could also serve as a good metric”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Technical Validation > Evaluation
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We calculate the mean value of at least 3 trials for each method on each dataset.”
§ MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification > Technical Validation > Benchmark on each dataset
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
The classification labels from the source datasets are accurate and suitable for the benchmark tasks.
“The MedMNIST uses the classification labels from the source datasets directly in most cases, but the labels could be simplified (merged or deleted classes) if the classification tasks on the small images are too difficult.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Resizing biomedical images to 28 × 28 (2D) or 28 × 28 × 28 (3D) preserves sufficient information for meaningful classification.
“All images are pre-processed into a MNIST-like format, i.e., 28 × 28 (2D) or 28 × 28 × 28 (3D), with cubic spline interpolation operation for image resizing.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The official data splits from source datasets avoid data leakage.
“We use the official data split from source dataset (if provided) to avoid data leakage.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Patient-level random splitting avoids data leakage for datasets without official splits.
“For the dataset without an official split, we split the dataset randomly at the patient level with a ratio of 7:1:2 into training-validation-test.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The selected 18 datasets are representative of primary data modalities and tasks in biomedical image analysis.
“The MedMNIST v2 dataset consists of 12 2D and 6 3D standardized datasets from carefully selected sources covering primary data modalities (e.g., X-ray, OCT, ultrasound, CT, electron microscope), diverse classification tasks (binary/multi-class, ordinal regression, and multi-label) and dataset scales (from 100 to 100,000).”
Citations
Cites
Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 · Cited by 235,474
Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization
Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 · Cited by 98,946
Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Cournapeau, D., Wieser, E., Taylor, J., Berg, S., Smith, N. J., et al. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 · Cited by 23,826
Advances in neural information processing systems 7
Cios, K. J., & Shields, M. E. (1997) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/s0925-2312(97)90018-7 · Cited by 22,093
Harris, C., Millman, K., van der Walt, S., Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Cournapeau, D., Wieser, E., Taylor, J., Berg, S., Smith, N., et al. (2020) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 17,844
A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis
Litjens, G., Kooi, T., Bejnordi, B. E., Setio, A. A. A., Ciompi, F., Ghafoorian, M., van der Laak, J. A. W. M., van Ginneken, B., & Sánchez, C. I. (2017) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2017.07.005 · Cited by 15,332 · cited 7×
“AdrenalMNIST3D New Shape from Abdominal CT BC (2) 1,584 1,188/98/298”
BackgroundInfluentialnnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation
Isensee, F., Jaeger, P. F., Kohl, S. A. A., Petersen, J., & Maier-Hein, K. H. (2021) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-020-01008-z · Cited by 10,477 · cited 1×
“21 Dermatoscope MC (7) 10,015 7,007/1,003/2,005”
The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms
Bradley, A. P. (1997) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/s0031-3203(96)00142-2 · Cited by 7,217
Deep learning in medical image analysis
Shen, D., Wu, G., & Suk, H.-I. (2017) · Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071516-044442 · Cited by 4,968
Identifying Medical Diagnoses and Treatable Diseases by Image-Based Deep Learning
Kermany, D. S., Goldbaum, M., Cai, W., Valentim, C. C. S., Liang, H., Baxter, S. L., McKeown, A., Yang, G., Wu, X., Yan, F., et al. (2018) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2018.02.010 · Cited by 4,842
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python. the Journal of machine Learning research 12, 2825–2830 (2011).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–400 of 1,054
A survey on design choices for self-supervised learning in computer vision
Wittscher, L. (2026) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-026-11506-9 · Cited by 4
Lightweight Neural Network Ensemble Models for Medical Image Classification with MedMNIST Dataset
Prvan, M., Musić, J., Čoko, D., & Kristić, A. (2026) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics15071470 · Cited by 4
DataMap: Dataset transferability map for medical image classification
Du, X., Liu, Z., Feng, Z., et al. (2023) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2023.110044 · Cited by 4
Self-citationPatel, T., El-Sayed, H., & Sarker, M. K. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Internet of Things and Intelligence Systems (IoTaIS) · doi:10.1109/iotais64014.2024.10799270 · Cited by 4
Synthetic image learning: Preserving performance and preventing Membership Inference Attacks
Lomurno, E., & Matteucci, M. (2025) · Pattern Recognition Letters · doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2025.02.003 · Cited by 4
Advancements in image classification for environmental monitoring using AI
Zhu, J., & Li, L. (2025) · Frontiers in Environmental Science · doi:10.3389/fenvs.2025.1562287 · Cited by 7
A comparative study of neural network pruning strategies for industrial applications
Zenoozi, A. D., Erhan, L., Liotta, A., & Cavallaro, L. (2025) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2025.1563942 · Cited by 6
SRE-CONV: Symmetric Rotation Equivariant Convolution for Biomedical Image Classification
Du, Y., Zhang, J., Zeevi, T., et al. (2025) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi60581.2025.10981270 · Cited by 4
“We use the same training and testing settings for all MedMNISTv2 [15] datasets.”
InfluentialKnowledge-driven quantum architecture search through filtering and focusing
Yu, L.-H., Li, X., Chen, G., Zhu, Q., Li, H., & Yang, G. (2025) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2025.122420 · Cited by 5
Cross-cluster precision-guided knowledge fusion for fair and personalized federated learning
Khan, A. N., Rizwan, A., Ahmad, R., Khan, Q. W., & Kim, D. (2025) · Alexandria Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.aej.2025.05.055 · Cited by 5
Feng, L., & Chen, S. (2025) · International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3731715.3733441 · Cited by 5
Kwiek, P., Ciepiela, F., & Jakubowska, M. (2025) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics14142773 · Cited by 4
Jeffrey, J., RajKumar, A., Pandey, S., Bathala, L., & Yalavarthy, P. K. (2025) · Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics · doi:10.1016/j.compmedimag.2025.102630 · Cited by 4
Wen, Y., Mahmoud, M. A., Wu, W., Chen, H., Zhang, Y., Pan, X., & Guan, Y. (2025) · Insights into Imaging · doi:10.1186/s13244-025-02113-3 · Cited by 4
Distributionally robust nonnegative matrix factorization with self-paced adaptive multi-loss fusion
Barkhoda, W., Seyedi, A., Gillis, N., et al. (2025) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2025.122823 · Cited by 4
A Novel Conditional Medical Image Generation GAN with Latent Space Optimal Transport
Wang, J., Lei, B., Xu, X., Zhuang, Y., & Zhang, M. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Medical Artificial Intelligence (MedAI) · doi:10.1109/medai59581.2023.00067 · Cited by 4
Amalgamation of Image Features for Medical Image Classification with Ensemble of Classifiers
Bhuvaneswari, R., Ashwini, K., & Kiran, B. S. (2023) · International Conference on Communication, Computing and Industry 4.0 (C2I4) · doi:10.1109/c2i659362.2023.10431014 · Cited by 4
Mou, T., Jiang, X., Li, J., Yan, B., Chen, Q., Zhang, T., Huang, W., Gao, C., & Chen, Y. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS) · doi:10.1109/icpads60453.2023.00180 · Cited by 4
Matryoshka: Exploiting the Over-Parametrization of Deep Learning Models for Covert Data Transmission
Pan, X., Zhang, M., Yan, Y., Zhang, S., & Yang, M. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2024.3434417 · Cited by 7
Construction and Validation of a General Medical Image Dataset for Pretraining
Zhang, R., Pei, C., Shi, J., et al. (2024) · Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10278-024-01226-3 · Cited by 4
VSAFL: Verifiable and Secure Aggregation With (Poly) Logarithmic Overhead in Federated Learning
He, Y., Zhou, D., Zhang, Q., & Tan, Z. (2024) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2024.3449705 · Cited by 4
“In this section, we compare the classification accuracy and convergence speed of VSAFL and FedAvg [4] on the MNIST, CIFAR-10 [41] and OrganAMNIST [42], [43] data sets.”
Enhancing Medical Image Classification with Unified Model Agnostic Computation and Explainable AI
Neghawi, E., & Liu, Y. (2024) · AI · doi:10.3390/ai5040111 · Cited by 4
“We conducted an evaluation of cutting-edge methods using five 2D medical image datasets from MedMNIST2D [39], which include BreastMNIST, DermaMNIST, RetinaM-NIST, ChestMNIST, and PneumoniaMNIST, totaling 130,858 samples.”
InfluentialMulti-scale and contrastive learning for pediatric chest radiograph classification tasks
Chen, Q., Lin, Z., Li, X., Zheng, J., Zhang, Y., & Ji, R. (2024) · Displays · doi:10.1016/j.displa.2024.102951 · Cited by 4
Hybrid Makes Better: Privacy-Preserving Medical Image Classification Based on Federated Learning
Wang, Z., Chi, H., Li, Y., Zhang, Y., Jiang, S., Du, X., & Guizani, M. (2024) · Globecom · doi:10.1109/globecom52923.2024.10901764 · Cited by 4
“…classification scheme, named FHDM. • To improve the accuracy of FHDM, we design loss optimization and global optimization strategies for LHDP. • We conducted experiments on real datasets [20] and compared previous scheme, FHDM effectively protects privacy and improves the average accuracy by 10.0%.”
InfluentialLabel Dependency Aware Loss for Reliable Multi-Label Medical Image Classification
Pal, A. S., Panda, A., & Garain, U. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49660.2025.10888215 · Cited by 4
Enhanced medical image generation through advanced latent space diffusion
Nguyen, K. M., Nguyen, H. C., Nguyen, H. H. T., et al. (2025) · Materials and Emerging Technologies for Sustainability · doi:10.1142/s3060932125500037 · Cited by 4
Do Sharpness-Based Optimizers Improve Generalization in Medical Image Analysis?
Hassan, M., Vakanski, A., Zhang, B., et al. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3568641 · Cited by 4
An Interpretable Quantum Adjoint Convolutional Layer for Image Classification
Wang, S., Wang, M., Zhao, R.-X., Liu, L., & Wang, Y. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/tcyb.2025.3567090 · Cited by 5
(2023) · International Journal of Advanced Technology and Engineering Exploration · doi:10.19101/ijatee.2022.10100468 · Cited by 5
Federated Learning-Based Privacy Protection for IoT-based Smart Healthcare Systems
Jiang, F., Chen, Z., Liu, L., & Wang, J. (2023) · IEEE/CIC International Conference on Communications in China (ICCC) · doi:10.1109/icccworkshops57813.2023.10233757 · Cited by 4
Regular SE(3) Group Convolutions for Volumetric Medical Image Analysis
Kuipers, T. P., & Bekkers, E. J. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-43898-1_25 · Cited by 4
A Privacy Preserving Computer-aided Medical Diagnosis Framework with Outsourced Model
Feng, X., Shen, Q., Li, C., et al. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) · doi:10.1109/bibm58861.2023.10385713 · Cited by 4
Şengül, S. B., & Özkan, İ. A. (2024) · International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology · doi:10.1002/ima.23108 · Cited by 5
A White-Box Module for Medical Image Multi-Classification via Bias Dendrite Net
Guan, C., Wang, W., Ai, H., & Singh, R. P. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · doi:10.1109/tim.2025.3551481 · Cited by 4
Towards Robust Federated Learning: Investigating Poisoning Attacks Under Clients Data Heterogeneity
Soubih, A., Lahmer, S., Abuhamad, M., et al. (2025) · International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication (IMCOM) · doi:10.1109/imcom64595.2025.10857574 · Cited by 3
“The images are colorized and resized to 28x28 pixels for classification in medical image analysis [20].”
InfluentialSEMI-CAVA: A Causal Variational Approach to Semi-Supervised Learning
Saha, S., Sahoo, P. K., & Garain, U. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2025.3594360 · Cited by 3
“We consider lightweight MedMNIST datasets [41], which are well-suited for the rapid prototyping of new algorithms.”
MedAlmighty: enhancing disease diagnosis with large vision model distillation
Ren, Y., Gu, Z., & Liu, W. (2025) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2025.1527980 · Cited by 3
Li, Y., Yijun, L., & Deng, W. (2025) · Frontiers in Environmental Science · doi:10.3389/fenvs.2025.1648562 · Cited by 3
MedGCD: Generalized Category Discovery in Medical Imaging
Das, A., Gautam, C., Agrawal, P., et al. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-04978-0_41 · Cited by 3
Huang, Y., Xu, Y., Dou, H., Deng, J. C., Yang, X., Zheng, H., & Ni, D. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-04965-0_61 · Cited by 3
NQNN: Noise-Aware Quantum Neural Networks for Medical Image Classification
Rahman, M., & Zhuang, J. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-05169-1_42 · Cited by 3
Artificial intelligence-enabled Bioprinting 5.0
Bai, L., Zhang, Y., Wang, S., Liu, J., Liu, Y., & Su, J. (2025) · Bio-Design and Manufacturing · doi:10.1631/bdm.2400354 · Cited by 4
“In addition, biomedical datasets, such as ImageNet and MedMNIST, play a significant role in training image recognition algorithms and validating the efficacy of AI models [200, 201].”
Per-FedAHM: Adaptive historical memory-driven personalized federated learning
Liu, W., Chen, J., Wang, B., Zhao, T. Q., & She, W. (2025) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.131716 · Cited by 4
Openness-aware multi-prototype learning for open set medical diagnosis
Liu, M., Xu, L., Gu, Y., et al. (2025) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2025.103863 · Cited by 3
Invited Paper: BitMedViT: Ternary-Quantized Vision Transformer for Medical AI Assistants on the Edge
Walczak, M., Kallakuri, U., Humes, E., Lin, X., & Mohsenin, T. (2025) · doi:10.1109/iccad66269.2025.11240999 · Cited by 5
Privacy-Preserving Classification of Medical Tabular Data with Homomorphic Encryption
Haq, F., Chen, C., & Chen, Z. (2025) · Algorithms · doi:10.3390/a18120731 · Cited by 5
Mehrnia, M., & Elbaz, M. S. M. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) · doi:10.1109/qce65121.2025.00221 · Cited by 5
“To further evaluate the generalizability and practical utility of our approach, future work will explore its application across a wider spectrum of datasets, modalities, and network architectures in diverse problem settings[29], [30], [31], [32].”
Ultra-lightweight uncertainty-aware ensemble for large-scale multi-class medical MRI diagnosis
Rahman, S., Farid, F. A., Zabin, M., Uddin, J., & Karim, H. A. (2025) · Frontiers in Radiology · doi:10.3389/fradi.2025.1723272 · Cited by 3
Ahmed, R., Baali, H., & Bouzerdoum, A. (2026) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-025-02658-2 · Cited by 3
“Similarly, (Yang et al., 2023) evaluated ResNet-18 and ResNet-50 on these DermaMNIST, performance is slightly lower than that of MedViT-S and ResNet-18, which may be attributed to the severe class imbalance and subtle visual differences between lesion types.”
Prototypical aggregate network - boosting few-shot learning for medical image classification
Chowdhury, R. R., Niyaz, U., & Bathula, D. R. (2026) · Multimedia Tools and Applications · doi:10.1007/s11042-026-21358-8 · Cited by 3
“To assess generalizability beyond histopathological datasets, we extended our experiments to two additional datasets, each representing a distinct imaging modality: DermaMNIST [ 50 ] and OrganAMNIST [ 50].”
Learning to See with Less: A Survey on Computer Vision with Limited and Imperfect Data
Fawakherji, M., Alaoui, S., & Turjya, S. M. (2026) · Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering · doi:10.1007/s11831-026-10558-y · Cited by 5
MADE-PI: Framework for Effective Anomaly Detection in Federated Learning Applications
Zatsarenko, R., Chuprov, S., Korobeinikov, D., Reznik, L., & Peña, A. (2025) · International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications · doi:10.1109/icmla66185.2025.00067 · Cited by 3
“…in practical deployment scenarios, we validate our method on three relevant computer vision applications: an Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) task [15], a medical diagnosis task for blood cell classification from MedicalMNIST [16], and handwritten symbol recognition using FEMNIST [17].”
Liu, Z., & Jiang, B. (2026) · Signal Image and Video Processing · doi:10.1007/s11760-026-05312-7 · Cited by 3
Self-citationA critical perspective on finite sample conformal prediction theory in medical applications
Kladny, K.-R., Schölkopf, B., Koch, L. M., Baumgartner, C. F., & Muehlebach, M. (2026) · Artificial Intelligence in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2026.103462 · Cited by 5
Contrastive learning for unsupervised medical image clustering and reconstruction
Ferrante, M., Boccato, T., Duggento, A., Spasov, S., & Toschi, N. (2023) · Proceedings of the Northern Lights Deep Learning Workshop · doi:10.7557/18.6819 · Cited by 4
unORANIC: Unsupervised Orthogonalization of Anatomy and Image-Characteristic Features
Doerrich, S., Salvo, F. D., & Ledig, C. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-45673-2_7 · Cited by 3
Ren, Y., Wang, G., Wang, P., et al. (2023) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ad1548 · Cited by 3
LatentDR: Improving Model Generalization Through Sample-Aware Latent Degradation and Restoration
Liu, R., Khose, S., Xiao, J., Sathidevi, L., Ramnath, K., Kira, Z., & Dyer, E. L. (2024) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv57701.2024.00265 · Cited by 3
Towards Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty in Medical Image Classification
Löhr, T., Ingrisch, M., & Hüllermeier, E. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-66535-6_17 · Cited by 5
A Conformalized Learning of a Prediction Set with Applications to Medical Imaging Classification
Hirsch, R., & Goldberger, J. (2024) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi56570.2024.10635187 · Cited by 3
C-UQ: Conflict-based uncertainty quantification—A case study in lung cancer classification
Zahari, R., Cox, J., & Obara, B. (2025) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2025.109825 · Cited by 3
Graph Neural Networks: A Suitable Alternative to MLPs in Latent 3D Medical Image Classification?
Kiechle, J., Lang, D. M., Fischer, S. M., et al. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-83243-7_2 · Cited by 3
A Reconfigurable Stream-Based FPGA Accelerator for Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Networks
Hafiz, M. I. A., Ravichandran, N. B., Lansner, A., Herman, P. A., & Podobas, A. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-87995-1_12 · Cited by 4
“The Pneumonia and Breast dataset are the part of MedMNIST dataset [37,38].”
Li, H.-Y., Funk, M., Wang, J.-D., & Saeed, A. (2025) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2025.3572206 · Cited by 6
“Specifically, we use four natural image datasets— CIFAR10/100 [50], Tiny-ImageNet [51], and SVHN [52]—as well as two medical image datasets—PathMNIST and DermaMNIST [53].”
Probabilistic Safety Regions via Finite Families of Adjustable Classifiers
Carlevaro, A., Álamo, T., Dabbene, F., & Mongelli, M. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2025.3568174 · Cited by 9
“In addition, we included two other datasets: Pneumo-niaMNIST from the medMNIST-v2 collection [58], and the WikiArt Art Movements / Styles dataset [59].”
PoolKANNeXt: A new pooling-based Kolmogorov Arnold convolutional neural network
Lv, F., Wei, Q., Huang, Y., et al. (2025) · Alexandria Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.aej.2025.05.073 · Cited by 3
Baskett, W. I., & Shyu, C. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI) · doi:10.1109/ichi64645.2025.00012 · Cited by 4
“For our tests, we used the 2D BreastMNIST and 3D AdrenalMNIST datasets from the MedMNIST v2 collection[32].”
Hybrid Quantum-Classical Neural Network for Breast Cancer Detection
Rahim, M. T., Ali, A., & Alam, T. (2025) · International Conference on Data Science and Its Applications (ICoDSA) · doi:10.1109/icodsa67155.2025.11157288 · Cited by 3
“In our study, we utilize MedMNIST data [17], which is similar to MNIST but with a resolution of (28 × 28) pixels.”
An Adaptive Lightweight Sequence Space Model for Medical Image Classification
Tulasiram, J., Banothu, B., Nickolas, S., & Patil, G. R. (2025) · SN Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s42979-025-04387-2 · Cited by 3
“MedMNIST [ 34], a collection of standardized biomedical images with corresponding labels, is designed to be accessible to users without prior expertise.”
Post-Variational Quantum Neural Networks on a Hybrid HPC-QC System
Vandromme, M., & Tsuji, M. (2025) · International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (SC) · doi:10.1145/3731599.3767540 · Cited by 3
DOMINO: Domain-aware loss for deep learning calibration
Stolte, S. E., Volle, K., Indahlastari, A., Albizu, A., Woods, A. J., Brink, K., Hale, M., & Fang, R. (2023) · Software Impacts · doi:10.1016/j.simpa.2023.100478 · Cited by 3
Affordable Graph Neural Network Framework Using Topological Graph Contraction
Adnel, C., & Rekik, I. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-44917-8_4 · Cited by 3
Distance Matters For Improving Performance Estimation Under Covariate Shift
Roschewitz, M., & Glocker, B. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops · doi:10.1109/iccvw60793.2023.00489 · Cited by 3
Benchmarking Federated Learning Frameworks for Medical Imaging Tasks
Fonio, S. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-51026-7_20 · Cited by 5
Skin lesion classification based on hybrid self‐supervised pretext task
Yang, D., Zhang, J., Li, Y., & Ling, Z. (2024) · International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology · doi:10.1002/ima.23058 · Cited by 4
EFSAttack: Edge Noise-Constrained Black-Box Attack Using Artificial Fish Swarm Algorithm
Gao, J., Zheng, K., Wang, X., Wu, C., & Wu, B. (2024) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics13132446 · Cited by 3
Towards Federated Learning on the Quantum Internet
Sünkel, L., Kölle, M., Rohe, T., & Gabor, T. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-63778-0_24 · Cited by 4
MVCNet: A Vision Transformer-Based Network for Multi-Label Zero-Shot Learning in Medical Imaging
Wu, S., Gan, H., Lo, Y.-T., Ramlee, M. H., & Basarudin, H. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Artificial Intelligence (SEAI) · doi:10.1109/seai62072.2024.10674183 · Cited by 3
HideMIA: Hidden Wavelet Mining for Privacy-Enhancing Medical Image Analysis
Lin, X., Yu, Y., Yu, Z., Meng, R., Jiale, Z., Liu, A., Liu, Y., Wang, S., Tang, W., Lei, Z., et al. (2024) · ACM International Conference on Multimedia (ACM MM) · doi:10.1145/3664647.3680806 · Cited by 7
Comparing Training of Sparse to Classic Neural Networks for Binary Classification in Medical Data
Erhan, L., Liotta, A., & Cavallaro, L. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-78049-3_10 · Cited by 3
Uncertainty-aware Masked Modeling in Medical Imaging
Zhang, J., Cao, Y., & Xu, D. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49660.2025.10890037 · Cited by 3
“We have selected two datasets, COVID-19 [20] and OrganMNIST-{ A, C, S } [21], for conducting downstream tasks to assess the effectiveness of the pre-training phase.”
Wei, X., Li, J., Zhang, X., Gu, H., de Weghe, N. V., & Huang, H. (2025) · Sustainable Cities and Society · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2025.106384 · Cited by 4
TraceFL: Interpretability-Driven Debugging in Federated Learning via Neuron Provenance
Gill, W., Anwar, A., & Gulzar, M. A. (2025) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1109/icse55347.2025.00128 · Cited by 5
Bilodeau, A., Beaupré, F., Chabbert, J., Thériault, K., Deschênes, A., Bellavance, J.-M., Lessard, K., Bernatchez, R., Koninck, P. D., Gagné, C., et al. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.06.06.656993 · Cited by 5
Towards the Generation of Medical Imaging Classifiers Robust to Common Perturbations
Chuah, J., Yan, P., Wang, G., & Hahn, J. (2024) · BioMedInformatics · doi:10.3390/biomedinformatics4020050 · Cited by 2
Explanatory Model Monitoring to Understand the Effects of Feature Shifts on Performance
Decker, T., Koebler, A., Lebacher, M., Thon, I., Volker Tresp, C., & Buettner, F. (2024) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3637528.3671959 · Cited by 5
Hassani, A., & Rekik, I. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-73290-4_4 · Cited by 2
Privacy-Preserving Ensemble Learning Using Fully Homomorphic Encryption
Sharma, T., Ratha, N., & Jutla, C. S. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-78107-0_13 · Cited by 2
MT-CooL: Multi-Task Cooperative Learning via Flat Minima Searching
Wu, F., Zhang, L., Sun, Y., Mo, Y., Nichols, T. E., & Papież, B. W. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2024.3512173 · Cited by 2
“Then the parameter and ablation studies with OrganCMNIST [40], [41], [42], [43] or CIFAR10 dataset [44] are conducted to provide deep insights into the proposed method in Section IV-C.”
Ultrasound breast cancer image classification with GAN-based synthetic data augmentation
Bećirović, M., Kurtović, A., Pozderac, D., & Omanović, S. (2024) · Telecommunications Forum (TELFOR) · doi:10.1109/telfor63250.2024.10819074 · Cited by 2
“The experiments in this paper utilized the BreastMNIST dataset [17] from the MEDMNIST collection [18] [19], which includes 18 standardized datasets for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification.”
Kanekar, B., Savarkar, A., Ramakrishnan, G., et al. (2025) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi60581.2025.10980935 · Cited by 2
“We used four different medical datasets for our experiments namely APTOS, BreastMNIST, DermaMNIST and PneumoniaMNIST [11].”
Wang, H., Zhang, X., Ren, X., Zhang, Z., Yang, S., Lian, C., Ma, J., & Zeng, D. (2025) · Communications Engineering · doi:10.1038/s44172-025-00485-4 · Cited by 2
“All images were partitioned into training, validation, and testing sets with a ratio of 7:1:2 24 .”
MedM-VL: What Makes a Good Medical LVLM?
Shi, Y., Yang, S., Zhu, X., Wang, H., Fu, X., Li, M., & Wu, J. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-06004-4_29 · Cited by 5
Particle Swarm Optimized Federated Learning for Efficient Classification of Medical Images
Yenilmez, M., & Aydın, İ. (2025) · International Conference on Advanced Computer Information Technologies (ACIT) · doi:10.1109/acit65614.2025.11185620 · Cited by 2
“The dataset is called MedMNIST[10],[11].”
Local Data Quantity-Aware Weighted Averaging for Federated Learning with Dishonest Clients
Wu, L., Jin, Y., Hao, K., & Yu, H. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME) · doi:10.1109/icme59968.2025.11209071 · Cited by 2
“MedMNIST [24] is a medical dataset that includes 12 2D sub-datasets and 6 3D sub-datasets, with image types covering X-rays, CT scans, MRIs, and more.”
Medformer: A Multitask Multimodal Foundational Model for Medical Imaging
Simionescu, C. (2025) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2025.09.163 · Cited by 2
Complex mixer for MedMNIST classification decathlon
Sun, S., Jia, X., & Zheng, Z. (2025) · Applied Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s10489-025-06967-4 · Cited by 2
Dual-targeted adversarial noise for 3D point cloud classification model
Lee, T., Lee, S., & Kwon, H. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-04691-0 · Cited by 2
Quantum Boltzmann Machines Using Parallel Annealing for Medical Image Classification
Schuman, D., Seebode, M. V., Rohe, T., Mansky, M. B., Schroedl-Baumann, M., Stein, J., Linnhoff–Popien, C., & Krellner, F. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) · doi:10.1109/qce65121.2025.00233 · Cited by 3
“Furthermore, the plots also show the best overall result obtained by running the QBM on quantum hardware (shown as +), as well as the For additional context, we included the results for two variants of the ResNet CNN [37] as reported in [2].”
InfluentialBeyond a single mode: GAN ensembles for diverse medical data generation
Tronchin, L., Löfstedt, T., Soda, P., & Guarrasi, V. (2026) · Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine · doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2026.109234 · Cited by 4
“We used three medical imaging datasets with different characteristics: PneumoniaMNIST [47], BreastMNIST [47], and AIforCOVID [48].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Yang, J., Shi, R., Wei, D., Liu, Z., Zhao, L., Ke, B., Pfister, H., & Ni, B.
- Affiliations
- Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
- Boston College (US)
- RWTH Aachen University (DE)
- Fudan University (CN)
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ni, Bingbing
- Venue
- Scientific Data
- Published
- 2023-01-19
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 41-41
- ISSN
- 2052-4463 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9852451
- OpenAlex
- W4317436377
- Semantic Scholar
- a66606a0bb11a1d5a7a14ec09df8a3481121ad6c
- Cited by
- 1,043
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 355 · 2025: 373 · 2024: 203 · 2023: 101
- Type
- data paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Scientific Data (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (U20B200011, 61976137)
- Shanghai Jiao Tong University (YG2021ZD18)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
- Keywords
- biomedical image classification, 3D medical images, benchmark dataset, ordinal regression, multi-label classification, automated machine learning, 3D neural networks
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Neural Networks, Computer, Benchmarking, Imaging, Three-Dimensional
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-21, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-21 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review