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 401–500 of 1,054
Mumtaz, N. A., Luthfiarta, A., Nugraha, A., et al. (2025) · International Seminar on Application for Technology of Information and Communication (iSemantic) · doi:10.1109/isemantic67418.2025.11292304 · Cited by 2
“This study uses the OCTMNIST dataset from the MedM-NIST v2 collection [9]”
InfluentialWu, X., Xu, Z., Lu, D., Sun, J., Liu, H., Shakil, S., Ma, J., Zheng, Y., & Tong, R. K.-Y. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-05185-1_6 · Cited by 2
Anisotropic Fourier Features for Positional Encoding in Medical Imaging
Jabareen, N., Yuan, D., Liu, D., Ten, F.-W., & Lukassen, S. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-06774-6_1 · Cited by 2
Liang, W., Zhang, W., Yan, H., Zong, Y., & Yan, C. (2025) · Biomedical Signal Processing and Control · doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2025.109388 · Cited by 4
Gan, C., Tan, X., Zhu, Q., Saini, A., Jain, D. K., & Diro, A. A. (2025) · Journal of Information Security and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jisa.2025.104348 · Cited by 2
SPARSE data, rich results: Few-shot semi-supervised learning via class-conditioned image translation
Manni, G., Lauretti, C., Zollo, L., et al. (2026) · Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics · doi:10.1016/j.compmedimag.2026.102705 · Cited by 2
TRELLIS -enhanced surface features for comprehensive intracranial aneurysm analysis
Hervé, C., Garnier, P., Viquerat, J., & Hachem, E. (2026) · Neuroscience Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.neuri.2026.100259 · Cited by 2
On the transfer learning behavior of domain-specific vision–language models in screening mammography
Khan, A. U., Ramasamy, G., Khan, M. D., et al. (2026) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2026.104986 · Cited by 2
Graph cohesiveness based clustering
Chen, W., Qiu, M., & Xiong, Z. (2026) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2026.131240 · Cited by 2
Shaukat, F., Parwez, K., Ashraf, Z., Alhabeeb, A., Alotaibi, F. A., & Alnfiai, M. M. (2026) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2026.3665786 · Cited by 4
Inference and training efficiency in pruned multilayer perceptron networks
Zenoozi, A. D., Erhan, L., Liotta, A., & Cavallaro, L. (2026) · PLOS complex systems. · doi:10.1371/journal.pcsy.0000095 · Cited by 1
“The OctMNIST dataset is part of the MedMNIST [55,56] collection, a standardized set of biomedical image datasets for machine learning.”
InfluentialAl-wajih, E., Usman, M., & Qadir, J. (2026) · Applied Soft Computing · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2026.115104 · Cited by 3
Afrin, N., Fahim, M. A. N. I., Alamro, W., Allawi, Y. M., Abadleh, A., Sultan, S. M., Α, E. E., & Zreikat, A. I. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0346128 · Cited by 3
“These architectural innovations have established CNNs and ViTs as state-of-the-art approaches on standard medical imaging benchmarks such as MedMNIST [13], demonstrating the transformative potential of deep learning in clinical diagnostics.”
InfluentialPerniciano, A., Cau, F. M., Spano, L. D., Ruberto, C. D., & Loddo, A. (2026) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2026.133854 · Cited by 2
Singh, K. P., Verma, M., Tyagi, D. K., Vipparthi, S. K., Murala, S., & Abdel-Mottaleb, M. S. (2026) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2026.116112 · Cited by 2
Defending Against Model Inversion Attacks for Biomedical Images via Learnable Data Perturbation
Jiang, S., Firouzi, F., & Chakrabarty, K. (2026) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2026.3693688 · Cited by 3
Park, S., 김진빈, Lee, S., et al. (2026) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2026.116200 · Cited by 2
Kolmogorov–Arnold Guided Local–Global Attention for Medical Image Classification
Pan, W., Wang, X., Lv, C., et al. (2026) · Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10278-026-02094-9 · Cited by 2
Explainable AI for Deep Visual Recognition: Evaluation, Methods, and Open Challenges
Alharbi, K. N. (2026) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics15143222 · Cited by 2
Nie, Y., He, S., Bie, Y., Wang, Y., Chen, Z., Yang, S., Cai, Z., Wu, L., Wang, H., Wang, X., et al. (2026) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-026-01764-x · Cited by 24
Lin, Y., Cheng, X., Liao, Y., & Cheng, W. (2026) · Fractal and Fractional · doi:10.3390/fractalfract10100661 · Cited by 4
Transfer Learning-based Ensemble Approach for Organ Classification: An Empirical Study
Islam, S. N., Tabassum, F., Rizwan, S., & Chowdhury, T. M. (2022) · International Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (ICECE) · doi:10.1109/icece57408.2022.10089089 · Cited by 2
YOLO-CBD: A Recognition and Detection Method for Cigarette Box Based on YOLOv5
Li, S., Zhou, S., Huang, Y., et al. (2023) · International Symposium on System Security, Safety, and Reliability (ISSSR) · doi:10.1109/isssr58837.2023.00044 · Cited by 2
Detection of Basal Cell Carcinoma in Whole Slide Images
Xu, H., Wang, D., Sowmya, A., & Katz, I. A. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-43987-2_26 · Cited by 3
Zeevi, T., Leapman, M., Sprenkle, P. C., et al. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2023.3326799 · Cited by 2
E-MedViTR: Enhanced Vision Transformers with Registers for Biomedical Image Classification
Ahmmed, S., Rahman, T., Islam, S. M. J., Reyad, A.-M., Dey, S., Purification, J. A., & Farid, D. M. (2024) · International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Information Communication Technology · doi:10.1109/iceeict62016.2024.10534573 · Cited by 2
The effect of noise removal filters on classifying different types of medical images
Atlan, F., & Pençe, İ. (2024) · Digital Signal Processing · doi:10.1016/j.dsp.2024.104613 · Cited by 2
The quest for a practical quantum advantage or the importance of applications for quantum computing
Lorenz, J. M. (2024) · Modern Physics Letters A · doi:10.1142/s0217732324300064 · Cited by 2
ILPO-NET: Network for the Invariant Recognition of Arbitrary Volumetric Patterns in 3D
Zhemchuzhnikov, D., & Grudinin, S. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-70359-1_21 · Cited by 2
Decentralized Incremental Federated Learning with Echo State Networks
Pompei, G., Dazzi, P., Caro, V. D., & Gallicchio, C. (2024) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn60899.2024.10650756 · Cited by 3
Real Time Multi Organ Classification on Computed Tomography Images
Yerebakan, H. Z., Shinagawa, Y., & Valadez, G. H. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-73748-0_1 · Cited by 2
Open-World Dynamic Prompt and Continual Visual Representation Learning
Kim, Y., Fang, J., Zhang, Q., Cai, Z., Shen, Y., Duggal, R., Raychaudhuri, D. S., Tu, Z., Xing, Y., & Dabeer, O. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72967-6_20 · Cited by 3
BioNAS: Neural Architecture Search for Multiple Data Modalities in Biomedical Image Classification
Kuş, Z., Kıraz, B., Aydın, M., et al. (2024) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-70924-1_41 · Cited by 2
Aguilera-González, S., Renza, D., & Moya-Albor, E. (2024) · International Symposium on Medical Information Processing and Analysis (SIPAIM) · doi:10.1109/sipaim62974.2024.10783583 · Cited by 2
“These datasets were extracted from MedMNIST, an initiative that has compiled several standardized biomedical datasets in a way that provides an easier starting point for researchers and medical image analysis professionals [16].”
Moser, P., Maletzky, A., & Giretzlehner, M. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) · doi:10.1109/qce60285.2024.00191 · Cited by 4
Personalized Federated Learning Using Client Clustering for Medical Image Classification
Huang, L., Gou, S., Cao, S., Liu, W., & Jiang, K. (2024) · International Conference on Biomedical Imaging, Signal Processing (ICBSP) · doi:10.1145/3707172.3707179 · Cited by 2
WeCAViT: A Weighted CNN model for Pneumonia Detection in Chest X-rays
Jumabekov, A., & Yashtini, M. (2025) · International Conference on Intelligent Control and Information Processing · doi:10.1109/icicip64458.2025.10898141 · Cited by 2
Towards Reflexive AI: A Comprehensive Exploration of Enhancing Social Science Research Through NLP
Shan, S. (2025) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-84460-7_49 · Cited by 4
Training Deep Neural Networks with Multi-Objective Adam Optimizer for Medical Image Classification
Nikbakhtsarvestani, F., Rahnamayan, S., & Ebrahimi, M. (2025) · doi:10.1109/cihm64979.2025.10969478 · Cited by 2
Bardozzo, F., Fiore, P., Lió, P., et al. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-89704-7_9 · Cited by 2
CyclicAugment: Optimized Medical Image Analysis via Adaptive Augmentation Intensity
Kim, M.-J., Chae, J.-W., & Cho, H. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3570899 · Cited by 2
Quantum-Inspired NAS With Attention-Based Search Spaces in Medical Applications
Ardila, D. P., de Carvalho, T. V., Saavedra, S. V., Niño, C. H. V., Figueiredo, K., & Vellasco, M. M. B. R. (2025) · doi:10.1109/cihmcompanion65205.2025.11002695 · Cited by 3
“The benchmarks reported in [35], including AutoML methods such as auto-sklearn [37], AutoKeras [38], and Google AutoML Vision, were used for comparison.”
Correntropy based label loss for multi-classification on deep neural networks
Deng, Q., Zhou, N., Luo, W., Du, Y., Shi, K., & Chen, B. (2025) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.130500 · Cited by 2
Multi-level aggregation based federated few-shot learning
Li, M., Zhu, H. P., Wang, E., Chen, D., & Xie, M. (2025) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.130574 · Cited by 2
Xu, W., Gan, H., Wu, S., et al. (2025) · International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD) · doi:10.1109/cscwd64889.2025.11033473 · Cited by 2
“NIH-ChestXray14 [28] consists of 112,120 frontal-view X-ray images from 30,805 unique patients, sourced from the ChestM-NIST dataset [29], annotated with 14 disease labels obtained through text mining.”
Enhancing mental health diagnostics through deep learning-based image classification
Zhang, L., & Zeng, R. (2025) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1627617 · Cited by 2
“While this transition enabled more flexible and scalable solutions, the reliance on manual feature extraction posed its own challenges, including potential biases and limited capture of the complex, non-linear relationships inherent in mental health data (7).”
A Federated Fairness-Aware Incentive Mechanism for medical image classification
Chen, C., Pan, H., Zhang, K., Li, Z., & Yu, F. (2025) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2025.111855 · Cited by 2
Maverick: Collaboration-Free Federated Unlearning for Medical Privacy
Ong, W. K., & Chan, C. S. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-05185-1_35 · Cited by 2
Abed, S. H., Sabar, N. R., & Mahmood, A. N. (2025) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103858 · Cited by 2
MedLeak: Multimodal Medical Data Leakage in Secure Federated Learning with Crafted Models
Shi, S., Haque, M. S., Parida, A., Zhang, C., Linguraru, M. G., Hou, Y. T., Anwar, S. M., & Lou, W. (2025) · IEEE/ACM Conference on Connected Health: Applications, Systems and Engineering Technologies · doi:10.1145/3721201.3721375 · Cited by 2
Optimizing Federated Learning by Entropy-Based Client Selection
Lutz, A., Steidl, G., Müller, K., & Samek, W. (2025) · International Conference on Federated Learning Technologies and Applications (FLTA) · doi:10.1109/flta67013.2025.11336673 · Cited by 8
Impact of Trivial Solutions on Classification Tasks Using CNNs
Fromme, D., Kaupenjohann, M., & Thiem, J. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Data Acquisition and Advanced Computing Systems: Technology and Applications (IDAACS) · doi:10.1109/idaacs58523.2023.10348715 · Cited by 2
DDPM-SKDNet: A Deep Learning Method for ICG Image Classification
Wang, Y., Liu, B., Yang, B., Li, J., Li, Y., & Pei, Y. (2023) · Conference proceedings/Conference proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/smc53992.2023.10394412 · Cited by 2
Persistence image from 3D medical image: superpixel and optimized Gaussian coefficient
Zhu, Y., Singh, Y. P., Younis, K. S., et al. (2025) · SPIE Medical Imaging: Computer-Aided Diagnosis · doi:10.1117/12.3047078 · Cited by 2
Wolf, D., Payer, T., Lisson, C. S., Lisson, C. G., Beer, M., GOETZ, M. A., & Ropinski, T. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.06534 · Cited by 3
Automatic Classification of Medical Image Modality Using Quantum Convolutional Neural Network
Tantawi, B., Ahmed, H. K., Magdy, M., & Sayed, G. I. (2023) · Advances in healthcare information systems and administration book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-8913-0.ch004 · Cited by 1
Targeted Defense Against Neuron-Exclusivity-Based Gradient Inversion Attack in Federated Learning
Yan, Y., Sun, Y., Cui, J., & Liu, J. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Smart Cloud (SmartCloud) · doi:10.1109/smartcloud58862.2023.00015 · Cited by 1
Federated Learning for Breast Cancer Classification
Mok, N. Y. E., & George, Y. (2024) · Advances in medical diagnosis, treatment, and care (AMDTC) book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-3218-4.ch013 · Cited by 1
Counting Network for Learning from Majority Label
Shiku, K., Matsuo, S., Suehiro, D., et al. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp48485.2024.10448425 · Cited by 1
Transduction Enhanced Inductive Inference for Imbalanced Classification in Medical Images
Zhang, Y., Zhou, T., Wu, Y., et al. (2024) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi56570.2024.10635370 · Cited by 1
Explainable rotation-invariant self-supervised representation learning
Singh, D., Marathe, A., Roy, S., Walambe, R. A., & Kotecha, K. V. (2024) · MethodsX · doi:10.1016/j.mex.2024.102959 · Cited by 2
Gao, F., Wang, S., Zhang, F., et al. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72120-5_17 · Cited by 1
GroupLearning: Label Noise Mitigation Through Multi-Expert Collaboration for Medical Image Analysis
Cao, Q., Liu, D., Fan, J., & Cai, W. (2024) · International Conference on Image and Vision Computing New Zealand (IVCNZ) · doi:10.1109/ivcnz64857.2024.10794199 · Cited by 1
“These datasets encompassed MNIST [11], CIFAR-10 [12], and a subset of the MedMNIST [1] dataset, comprising BloodMNIST, DermaMNIST, and PathMNIST.”
Split Learning Optimized For The Medical Field: Reducing Communication Overhead
Guo, S., Lu, Z. G., Lu, S., Cui, Y., Tang, X., & Wu, J. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) · doi:10.1109/bibm62325.2024.10822194 · Cited by 1
“We conducted experiments on the CIFAR-10 dataset [23], the OrganAMNIST dataset [24], and the HAM10000 dataset [13].”
Tian, H., Yue, J., Liu, X., Yang, G., Jiang, Z., & Wang, G. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) · doi:10.1109/bibm62325.2024.10822646 · Cited by 2
Federated Impression for Learning with Distributed Heterogeneous Data
Arya, A., Ayromlou, S., Saadat, A., et al. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-77610-6_20 · Cited by 1
Padé-ResNet: Improving the Accuracy and Stability of Medical Image Classification
Zhu, H., Ma, L., & Li, H. (2024) · International Conference on Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icsp62129.2024.10846648 · Cited by 1
Reputation based Adaptive Federated Learning in Medical Scenarios
Wang, L., Liu, T., Wang, Y., Wang, X., & Li, Q. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Data Science in Cyberspace · doi:10.1109/dsc63484.2024.00088 · Cited by 1
Replica tree-based federated learning using limited data
Ghilea, R., & Rekik, I. (2025) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2025.107281 · Cited by 1
Learning Robust Representations by Autoencoders With Dynamical Implicit Mapping
Zeng, J., Jiang, W., Zhang, Y., Shi, Y.-G., & Wang, J. (2025) · IEEE Signal Processing Letters · doi:10.1109/lsp.2025.3544969 · Cited by 1
A Novel Nonparallel Hyperplane Based Extreme Learning Machine for Classification
Kumar, A., Shukla, S., & Gyanchandani, M. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3577160 · Cited by 1
Liu, L., Su, X., Wang, X., & Gao, G. (2025) · Biomedical Signal Processing and Control · doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2025.108308 · Cited by 1
Dual-Stage Clean-Sample Selection for Incremental Noisy Label Learning
Li, J., Ma, X., & Shi, Y. (2025) · Bioengineering · doi:10.3390/bioengineering12070743 · Cited by 1
Iqbal, S., Zhong, X., Khan, M. A., Wu, Z., AlHammadi, D. A., & Liu, W. (2025) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2025.107920 · Cited by 3
CoRLD: Contrastive Representation Learning of Deformable Shapes in Images
Hossain, T., & Zhang, M. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-96625-5_23 · Cited by 1
Combating strawberry leaf diseases with image super resolution vision
Yeswanth, P. V., & Deivalakshmi, S. (2025) · Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy · doi:10.1007/s43538-025-00501-3 · Cited by 1
Guided Diffusion For Class-Conditioned Synthesis & Classification Of Microscopic Blood Cell Images
Hoh, K.-E., Loo, J.-Y., Tan, Y. F., et al. (2025) · Proceedings - International Conference on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/icip55913.2025.11084337 · Cited by 1
Lightweight Concurrent Out-of-Distribution Detection in Hyperdimensional Computing Hardware
Roodsari, M. S., Meyers, V., & Tahoori, M. B. (2025) · IEEE International On-Line Testing Symposium (IOLTS) · doi:10.1109/iolts65288.2025.11116825 · Cited by 1
“Five OOD sets are used for MNIST and FashionMNIST, including MNIST for FashionMNIST and vice versa, resized CIFAR-10, MedMNIST [32], MNIST-C [33], and Gaussian noise.”
A Quantum-Classical GAN Approach for HighFidelity Brain MRI Resolution Enhancement
Hanafi, B., & Ali, M. (2025) · International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development · doi:10.23919/indiacom66777.2025.11115235 · Cited by 1
“The ensuing methodology prescribes a holistic, step-by-step approach meant to create, train, and test the QC-GAN model with the OrganAMNIST dataset [23].”
Uncertainty Quantification via Hölder Divergence for Multi-View Representation Learning
Zhang, Y., Li, M., Li, C., Liu, Z., Zhang, Y., & Yu, F. R. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Multimedia · doi:10.1109/tmm.2025.3604966 · Cited by 1
Self-citationCao, Z., Zhang, J., Chen, L., Li, T., Wu, H., & Zhang, Y. (2025) · Current Medical Imaging Formerly Current Medical Imaging Reviews · doi:10.2174/0115734056401610250827114351 · Cited by 1
Learning from majority label: A novel problem in multi-class multiple-instance learning
Shiku, K., Matsuo, S., Suehiro, D., et al. (2025) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2025.112425 · Cited by 1
Sun, Y. J., & Sun, S. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3608163 · Cited by 1
Meng, J., Wang, W., Zhang, J., Liang, Y., Tian, L., & Zhao, J. (2025) · Journal of Materials Chemistry C · doi:10.1039/d5tc02633d · Cited by 1
VesiclePy: A machine learning vesicle analysis toolbox for volume electron microscopy
Adhinarta, J. K., Fan, Y., Gohain, A., et al. (2026) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013499 · Cited by 1
Self-citationWang, X., Li, B., Ma, J., Huo, L., & Tian, X. (2025) · Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express · doi:10.1088/2057-1976/ae0482 · Cited by 1
Embedding-Based Federated Data Sharing via Differentially Private Conditional VAEs
Salvo, F. D., Nguyen, H. H. M., & Ledig, C. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-05185-1_14 · Cited by 1
Approximately Unimodal Likelihood Models for Ordinal Regression
Yamasaki, R. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2025.3617386 · Cited by 1
“However,itwasalso observedexperimentallythatmanyreal-worldordinaldatapartlyhavevaluesoftheexplanatoryvariablewheretheunderlyingCPD willbenon-unimodal,andhenceunimodallikelihoodmodelsmaysufferfromabiasforsuchaCPD.”
Stable Vision Concept Transformers for Medical Diagnosis
Hu, L., Lai, S., Yuan, H., et al. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-06066-2_19 · Cited by 1
Personalized Federated Learning via Gradient-Fusion and Gradient-Decoupling for Heterogeneous Data
He, Z., Li, Y., & Cai, Z. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing · doi:10.1109/tmc.2025.3618262 · Cited by 1
“We evaluate the performance of pFedAggS and pFedAggD utilizing four public benchmark datasets: OrganAM-NIST, OrganSMNIST, OrganCMNIST, and PathMNIST, collated by Yang etal medmnistv1 [34].”
The Pontryagin Maximum Principle for Training Convolutional Neural Networks
Hofmann, S., & Borzı̀, A. (2025) · SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science · doi:10.1137/24m1675369 · Cited by 2
“In this Section, we apply the mini-batch version of the bSQH method to the OrganAMNIST dataset, which is provided as part of the medMNIST database [42, 43] and consists of a collection of computed tomography (CT) images of organs; see Figure 3 for samples with corresponding labels.”
Zhang, W., Yun, Z., Du, M., Guo, X., & Xiong, N. N. (2025) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2025.3592420 · Cited by 1
Singh, R., & Guggilam, S. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3621553 · Cited by 1
“MedMNIST v2 [35] is a publicly available collection of standardized medical datasets that are commonly used for biomedical image analysis.”
Towards building robust models for unimodal and multimodal medical imaging data
Dhar, J., Goyal, P., Haghighat, M., Zaidi, N. A., Sohel, F. A., Vo, Q. B., & Santosh, K. (2025) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103822 · Cited by 1
Gibala, S., Kurilová, V., Oravec, M., Pavlovičová, J., & Štefaničková, J. (2025) · Journal of Electrical Engineering · doi:10.2478/jee-2025-0050 · Cited by 1
Generalized high-dimensional tensor learning with nuclear norm regularization
Shen, W., Wang, Y., & Zhu, X. (2025) · Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics · doi:10.1007/s10463-025-00960-x · Cited by 1
“We now proceed to analyze the NoduleMNIST3D dataset, sourced from Yang et al. (2023).”
Measuring Uncertainty in Medical Image Diagnosis via Conformal Focal Loss
Yang, A., Yue, X.-D., & Chen, Y.-F. (2025) · International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management · doi:10.1145/3746252.3760879
An accurate pixel-Level explainable approach for CNNs and its application
Zhang, H., Wang, J., Wang, Z., et al. (2025) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2025.108289 · Cited by 1
Investigating the Robustness of Fuzzy Deep Learning on Noisy Medical Images
Pandey, B., Dubey, S. R., & Joshi, D. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tai.2025.3635556 · Cited by 1
“For the purpose of analyzing the impact of noise and adversarial attacks on the DNFS, the model was trained and tested on part of MedMNIST dataset [27].”
PET-TURTLE: Deep Unsupervised Support Vector Machines for Imbalanced Data Clusters
Cavazos, J. S. (2025) · IEEE Signal Processing Letters · doi:10.1109/lsp.2025.3636453 · Cited by 2
“The MedMNIST [42] package is used for data loading the medical imaging datasets.”
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