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 801–900 of 1,054
Kong, F., Cheng, H., Chen, T., Shi, X., & Yuan, C. (2026) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app16073140
“To evaluate the performance of membership inference attacks (MIAs) on diffusion models within the medical domain, we utilized the MedMNIST collection [50,51].”
Punn, N. S., & Tapaswi, S. (2026) · Biomedical Signal Processing and Control · doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2026.110093
Non-Equilibrium Dynamics of Quantum Many-Body Systems for Image Processing
Zhou, R., & Bayat, A. (2025) · Intelligent Autonomous Systems · doi:10.1109/icoias69065.2025.00008
“In this work, we employ four MedMNIST datasets: PathMNIST, BloodMNIST, OCTMNIST, and Pneumoni-aMNIST [43], [44].”
Yan, J., Pan, M., Hua, G., Li, W., Huang, X., Chen, Y., & Zheng, Z. (2026) · IET Image Processing · doi:10.1049/ipr2.70327
Evaluating GRAD-CAM Explainability Across Deep Learning Models
Shaju, A., Akshay, C., Murali, M., V, et al. (2025) · doi:10.1109/iccspci68199.2025.11451593
“4) Med-MNIST: One of the more advanced datasets we used is the MedMNIST dataset [22], which contains preprocessed medical images designed for deep-learning models for medical image classification.”
Interpretable Similarity of Synthetic Image Utility
Gatoula, P., Dimas, G., & Iakovidis, D. K. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2026.3679527 · Cited by 2
Ganji, M., Satyamurty, C. V. S., & Punna, H. S. (2026) · International Conference on Intelligent Sustainable Systems (ICISS) · doi:10.1109/iciss67859.2026.11453772
“These methods have greater generalization ability when compared to rule-based systems, but their performance is reliant on hand-crafting features, a process that is time-consuming and requires specialized knowledge to create and analyze complex data and mental health neuroimaging datasets [7].”
Benchmarks and methods for 3D medical image retrieval
Abacha, A. B., Santamaría-Pang, A., Lee, H. H., et al. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-38473-z
Quantum algorithms for reinforcement learning
Cherrat, E. A. (2023) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/ec6ab96az80c1z473az8098z76724c736a49
Zouambi, M. (2023) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/55e8165ez7d3fz4367z9600z59bfa5747a21
Don, A. K. K., & Khalil, I. (2026) · Quantum Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s42484-026-00385-6 · Cited by 1
A unified 2D grid method for visualizing n-dimensional array data
Pitkäkangas, V. (2026) · Journal of Computational Science · doi:10.1016/j.jocs.2026.102859
Secure yet fragile: adversarial vulnerabilities of federated vision–language models in medical AI
Fime, A. A., Samiha, T. Z., Hossain, M. Z., Zaman, S., Shibli, A. M., Shahid, A. R., Ni, Z., & Imteaj, A. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-48102-4
Reducing Accessibility Gap to Specialized M-LLMs with General-Purpose M-LLMs
Idris, A., Song, S. H., Efat, A. A., & Tavanapong, W. (2026) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Computer, Data Sciences and Applications (ACDSA) · doi:10.1109/acdsa67686.2026.11468063
“Datasets and Evaluation Metrics: We benchmarked the performance of our approach on five MedMNIST datasets [36], [37], specifically, OrganCMNIST, PathMNIST, BloodMNIST, DermaMNIST, and OCTMNIST.”
Detecting Propensity Score Shifts Across Groups in Positive–Unlabeled Data
Tesliuk, I., & Teisseyre, P. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-23833-7_5
Insights into the selective reduction of NO over Al 2 O 3 -supported Pt, Rh, and Pd catalysts
OISHI, S., Togashi, H., Aono, K., et al. (2026) · Catalysis Science & Technology · doi:10.1039/d6cy00094k
Medical Federated Learning Under Long-Tailed and non-IID Distributions
Xie, Q., Chen, J., Wang, W., et al. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp55912.2026.11462832
Learning Class-Conditional Temperature with Entropy Alignment for Medical Image Classification
Pan, W., Liu, R., Lv, C., Han, P., Gong, L., & Wang, X. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp55912.2026.11461570
Token Differential Neural Computer for 3D Biomedical Image Analysis
Hongkai, W. E. I., Guo, K., Wang, R., et al. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp55912.2026.11462503
Wu, R., Liang, D., Li, J., et al. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp55912.2026.11463620
Rademan, M. W., Versfeld, D. J. J., & Preez, J. A. D. (2026) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2026.3683677
Sivakumar, D., Saritha, R. M., Kumar, R. S., et al. (2026) · International Conference on Innovative Computing, Intelligent Communication and Smart Electrical Systems (ICSES) · doi:10.1109/icses66558.2026.11479060
“Proper segmentation of biomedical images is a prerequisite activity in clinical diagnosis, treatment planning and disease progression analysis [1].”
MedParam: Template-Based Dataset Parameterization for Medical Data Sharing
Ye, W., Li, X., Liu, Y., et al. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp55912.2026.11462016
Super-Resolution Diffusion Model for Explainable Microscopic Peripheral Blood Cell Image Synthesis
Hoh, K.-E., Tew, H. H., Loo, J.-Y., et al. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp55912.2026.11460898
Kim, D., Chung, H., & Jang, I. (2026) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2026.113820
Comparing Different Positional Encodings for the Interpretation of Medical Images
Santomauro, A., Leonardi, G., & Portinale, L. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-16708-8_6
Semi supervised GAN for smart microscopy, fast and data efficient cell cycle classificationPreprint
Manick, R., Habouz, Y. E., Guillout, M., Martin, C., Bonnet, J., Ruel, L., Pastezeur, S., Chanteux, O., Bouchareb, O., Tramier, M., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.04.23.720294
“The method was evaluated on eleven datasets from the MedMNIST (Yang et al., 2023) benchmark under few-shot settings of 5, 10, 20, and 50 labelled samples per class.”
Fowler, Z., & AlRegib, G. (2026) · Proceedings - International Conference on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/icip61757.2026.11630303
Dinesh Babu, R. (2026) · MSRDG International Journal of Computer Scientific Technology & Electronics Engineering · doi:10.66037/msrdg-ijcstee/v2i2p102
Perceptually-Constrained Counterfactual Explanations Using Conditional $\beta$-VAE
Aasrika, K., Reddy, D., Chauda, K., et al. (2026) · doi:10.1109/comp-sif69752.2026.11481918
“PathMNIST [22]: 97,176 RGB histopathology images (28 × 28) of nine colorectal tissue types (90K train/7K test, evaluated on 100 samples).”
Blockchain Integrated Federated Learning with Privacy-Preserving Neural Networks
Yarlagadda, K. C. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Emerging Computing and Intelligent Technologies (ICoECIT) · doi:10.1109/icoecit68303.2026.11496782
Unnikrishnan, B., Brudno, M., & McIntosh, C. (2026) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv61042.2026.00132
Kundalwal, M. K., Mamta, Mishra, D., & Ekbal, A. (2026) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv61042.2026.00142
KUMAP : Kernel Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Medical Image Classification
Li, B., Zou, Y., & Ran, R. (2026) · Expert Systems · doi:10.1111/exsy.70286
Potential of quantum computing in PET imaging reconstruction
Hu, Q., Deng, X., Papp, L., Schulz, L. B., Schulz, M., & Shi, K. (2026) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.65457/jnmmi-2026-0020
CoPA–Fed: A Federated Reliability Auditing System Under Biased Client Participation
Tallat, R., Xu, X. X., Hawbani, A., et al. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-92-0366-6_38
Verma, A., & Chauhan, N. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Communication Systems and Network Technologies (CSNT) · doi:10.1109/csnt69054.2026.11502189
“DermaMNIST [16]: 10,015 dermatoscopic images across 7 skin disease classes.”
InfluentialFederated learning with context-aware client collaboration: Challenges, advances, and open problems
Ziaeinejad, S., & Samet, S. (2026) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2026.104446
Neo, R. Y. S. (2026) · BMC Research Notes · doi:10.1186/s13104-026-07793-8
“We use PneumoniaMNIST from MedMNIST v2 [9], a pediatric chest X-ray benchmark with predefined train/ val/test splits.”
A Two-Stage Transfer Learning EfficientNet-B0 Model for Dermatoscopic Image Classification
Garg, N., Priyanshu, Chopra, S., et al. (2025) · doi:10.1109/rcsm67767.2025.11507439
“The research experiments were conducted using the Der-maMNIST dataset [19], [21], which was created from the well-known HAM10000 collection [23] of dermoscopic pictures.”
InfluentialIB-Mix: Information Bottleneck and Mixup for Class-Imbalanced Image Classification
Ativi, W. X., Chen, W., Kwao, L., & Ayivi, W. (2026) · Asia Conference on Algorithms, Computing and Machine Learning (CACML) · doi:10.1109/cacml68972.2026.11506876
“We use CIFAR-100-LT [8] with ρ ∈ { 10 , 50 , 100 , 200 } , ImageNet-LT [3], MedMNIST [21], and ISIC 2019 [22].”
Sajid, M. Z., & Hamid, M. F. (2026) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2026.123620
SULBA: A Task-Agnostic Data Augmentation Framework for Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis
Abe, A., & Nyathi, M. (2026) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics16101546
“For 2D classification, the BloodMNIST, BreastMNIST, DermaMNIST, OctMNIST, Or-ganAMNIST, OrganCMNIST, OrganSMNIST, PathMNIST, PneumoniaMNIST, and Tis-https sueMNIST were selected from the MedMNIST v2 [32] suite.”
Local $K$-Similarity Constraint for Medical Federated Learning with Label Noise
Amgain, S., Shrestha, P., Khanal, B., et al. (2026) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi61048.2026.11515355
“This research study was conducted retrospectively using human subject data made available in open access by [13, 14].”
MEDQUA: A NISQ-Aware Quantum Adapter for Medical Vision–Language Models
Li, Y., Pan, Y., Chen, J., Zhou, Y., Jiang, H., Zhao, H., Lyu, Y., Liu, Z., Zhao, L., Zhu, D., et al. (2026) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi61048.2026.11515966
“We use only the ChestM-NIST subset from MedMNIST v2 [18], which consists of grayscale chest X-ray thumbnails derived from NIH ChestX-ray14 and annotated with 14 disease labels.”
Self-citationUseful Nonrobust Features are Ubiquitous in Biomedical Images
Mouton, C., Rabe, R., Koser, N. C., et al. (2026) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi61048.2026.11515306
“This research study was conducted retrospectively using human subject data made available in open access by the MedM-NIST and MedMNIST-C datasets [5, 12].”
Unsupervised Confidence Calibration for Active Learning
Fukui, N., Hayashi, H., & Nagahara, H. (2026) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi61048.2026.11515622
“We used the OrganAMNIST, OrganCMNIST, and OrganSM-NIST datasets [10] (hereafter denoted as “A,” “C,” and “S,” respectively, in the tables), each consisting of 11 classes.”
Almalki, A. J., Kadry, H., Ghorashi, S. A., et al. (2026) · Egyptian Informatics Journal · doi:10.1016/j.eij.2026.100990
MedMNIST-NAS-Bench: A Tabular Neural Architecture Search Benchmark on MedMNIST v2
Wang, W. (. (2026) · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.20364513
A unified hybrid Quantum-Embedded Timestep Mapping method for diffusion models
An, K., Kong, D., Zhang, K., Yu, M., Fu, Y., Xu, J., & Wang, D. (2026) · Displays · doi:10.1016/j.displa.2026.103551
Distributed Quantum Learning Over Near-Term Devices: Convergence Analysis and Security Design
Pokharel, A., Shaon, S., Morris, T. H., & Nguyen, D. C. (2026) · IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications · doi:10.1109/jsac.2026.3696594
“For the security extension in QS-DQL, we incorporate the OrganAMNIST dataset from the MedMNIST collection [42] to simulate training with sensitive medical data.”
Gao, A., Shuang, W. A. N. G., & Wang, X. (2026) · Intelligent Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.iswa.2026.200678
Sotero, R. C., & Sánchez‐Bornot, J. M. (2026) · AI · doi:10.3390/ai7060194
“…entropic cost of structuring attention [9], and we verify the bound on three image-classification datasets (MNIST [10], CIFAR-10 [11], and OrganAMNIST [12]) with a compact Vision Transformer (ViT, 0.2M parameters) [3] and on a pretrained ViT-Small (22M parameters) [13] fine-tuned on Food-101 [14].”
Tanchak, K., Shah, K. A., & Doshi, N. (2026) · International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development · doi:10.23919/indiacom70271.2026.11526269
“The model was trained and evaluated using Med MNIST suite which is standard dataset for medical imagining, we have used OCTMNIST and Tissue MNIST datasets [20].”
Khan, D. I. U. (2025) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Machine Learning and Neural Network · doi:10.55529/jaimlnn.51.114.121
Fixed-Budget Cross-Domain Vision Benchmark Medical Histopathology and Industrial Remote Sensing
Hes, A., Lakkshmanan, A., Singh, H., Daniel, J., & Sekharan, S. C. (2026) · International Conference on Augmented Intelligence and Sustainable Systems (ICAISS) · doi:10.1109/icaiss68683.2026.11525780
“Second, both datasets are established benchmarks with standardized splits and active research communities, ensuring comparability with prior work [7], [8].”
Histopathological Image Classification on PathMNIST Using Pretrained CNN Models
Sreenidhi, C., Surendiran, B., Mayudu, B. P., Mouli, P. V. S. S. R. C., & Vinothini, K. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-23945-7_1
Rahman, M., Paul, P. C., Begum, A., et al. (2026) · Journal of Imaging · doi:10.3390/jimaging12060232
Tina: A diffusion neural network for generating personalized AI models from text prompts
Li, Z.-X., Gao, L.-Z., Cai, D.-Q., Lane, N., & Wu, C. (2026) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2026.101571
“We used four datasets to conduct experiments, including three commonly used datasets in computer vision (Mini-ImageNet, 29,30 CIFAR-100, 31 and Caltech-101 32 ) and one medical dataset of medical image recognition (MedMNIST 27,28 ).”
Redefining lightweight vision models for healthcare AI
Lee, L., Feng, Z., Tan, J. S., & Chng, C. L. (2026) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2026.1824634
Masood, R. F., & Taj, I. A. (2026) · Network Modeling Analysis in Health Informatics and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1007/s13721-026-00797-1
“…the multi-head architecture and WELDE framework generalize beyond spinal MRI, we conduct a cross-domain evaluation on the DermaMNIST skin lesion classification benchmark Yang et al. (2023 ), which repack-ages the HAM10000 (ISIC 2018) dataset Tschandl et al. ( 2018 ) into a standardized format.”
Pérez, M. C., Díaz, J. L. S., Vicente, G. M., Martin-Rodríguez, J. L., & Triguero, F. H. (2026) · IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence (CAI) · doi:10.1109/cai68641.2026.11536456
“The 3D CNN architectures were first pretrained on the MedMNIST3D dataset [20], which contains volumetric CT scans for anatomical classification tasks.”
Du, G., Qiu, F., He, T., Guo, H., & Wang, L. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1746785
Federated Deep Learning for Pneumonia Diagnosis from Distributed Non-IID Clinical Imaging Data
Sanjana, S., & Bhargavi, M. S. (2026) · International Conference on Intelligent Computing, Networks, and Security (IC-ICNS) · doi:10.1109/ic-icns68863.2026.11537505
“This study utilizes the Pneumonia MNIST dataset, a binary image classification benchmark derived from pediatric chest X-ray images and standardized as part of the MedMNIST v2 suite [7].”
Continual Learning for Histopathology Image Classification in Class-Incremental Learning
Wu, Y., Zhao, Y., & Ralescu, A. (2026) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics16111711
“They conducted an evaluation of CL methods on MedMNIST [35] and reported their comparative performance.”
Doğan, M. E., & Erdem, Ç. E. (2026) · IEEE Swiss Conference on Data Science (SDS) · doi:10.1109/sds70563.2026.00029
Devarajan, D., Radha, R., Sivakumar, S., et al. (2026) · Iranian Journal of Science and Technology Transactions of Electrical Engineering · doi:10.1007/s40998-026-01122-2
GEMEX: Model-Agnostic XAI via Geodesic Entropic Manifold Analysis
Köse, U. (2026) · International Congress on Human-Computer Interaction, Optimization and Robotic Applications (ICHORA) · doi:10.1109/ichora69329.2026.11537244
“A time series analysis was performed using ECG5000 dataset [21] (5000 ECG recordings, 140 time steps), and image evaluation was conducted using PneumoniaMNIST, OrganAMNIST and BloodMNIST (RGB-input) datasets from medical MNIST repository [22].”
Zhai, C., Liu, H., Shang, E., Lu, J., Qiu, Z., & Du, J. (2026) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2026.116371
Shahriar, M. H., Wang, N., Sikder, A. K., Ramakrishnan, N., Hou, Y. T., & Lou, W. (2026) · ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security (ASIA CCS) · doi:10.1145/3779208.3806083
Ahmed, A. M. M., Moon, S. H., Masum, A. K. M., et al. (2026) · doi:10.23919/date69613.2026.11539348
“SP-HD consistently outperforms LeHDC across all datasets; the most significant gains occur on PneumoniaMNIST [15] and BreastMNIST [16] datasets.”
Boukdir, A. (2026) · Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering · doi:10.1007/s13369-026-11422-8
Chittaiah, N. M., & Manjula, S. H. (2026) · Engineering Technology & Applied Science Research · doi:10.48084/etasr.18548 · Cited by 1
“The MedMNIST dataset [24, 25] is a collection of lightweight biomedical image datasets designed for classification tasks.”
Chen, W., Liu, X., Qiu, M., et al. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2026.3701456
Priv-FedTL: Privacy-preserving federated transfer learning for resource constrained devices
Osmani, A. M. I. M., Rahman, T., Rahman, M. S., & Islam, S. (2026) · Computer Networks · doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2026.112449
Enhancing Manifold Convexity in Deep MRI Image Clustering Using Adversarial Learning
Hilal, S., Mrabah, N., Allam, Z. A., et al. (2025) · International Conference on Data Analytics for Business and Industry (ICDABI) · doi:10.1109/icdabi67967.2025.11547663
“Finally, the datasets are diverse, offering both binary class and multiclass data in addition to grayscale and colored datasets in both 2D and 3D [20].”
Ibrahim, G., & Halima, S. (2025) · International Conference on Data Analytics for Business and Industry (ICDABI) · doi:10.1109/icdabi67967.2025.11547798
Basudan, S., & Alamer, A. M. A. (2026) · Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications · doi:10.1007/s12083-026-02258-y · Cited by 1
Self-adaptive forward-forward network for anomaly detection and medical image analysis
Müller, J. P., Baugh, M., & Kainz, B. (2026) · Frontiers in Radiology · doi:10.3389/fradi.2026.1771850
Distributional Loss for Robust Classification
Anderson, K., & Martinetz, T. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-38398-3_43
Gómez-Vela, F., López, A. L., Divina, F., & García-Torres, M. (2026) · Applied Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s10489-026-07398-5
Cheng, L. (2026) · International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3805622.3810827
Parallelly Tempered Generative Adversarial Nets: Toward Stabilized Gradients
Sohn, J., & Song, Q. (2026) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.2026.2688612
Li, H. (2026) · International Seminar on Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Information Technology (AINIT) · doi:10.1109/ainit70033.2026.11557806
“Publicly available benchmarks such as MedMNIST further accelerate algorithm development by providing standardized, lightweight datasets like BreastMNIST [1]—a collection of 28 × 28 grayscale ultrasound images for binary tumor classification.”
HistoSB-Net: Semantic Bridging for Data-Limited Cross-Modal Histopathological Diagnosis
Bai, B., Shih, T., & Miyata, K. (2026) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2026.3704652
Chen, S., Luo, Y., Gao, L., et al. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-3827-0_10
PoSVM: Posit-Based Accelerator for SVM-driven Edge Biomedical Image Classification
Arun, M. R., Kagalkar, M. S., & Rao, M. (2026) · ACM Great Lakes Symposium on VLSI (GLSVLSI) · doi:10.1145/3787109.3815269
Li, J., Meng, Y., Ma, X., et al. (2026) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2026.116508
Fine-grained alignment in medical pathology vision-language models via variational distillation
Huang, R., Lin, H., Zhuo, W., et al. (2026) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2026.114283
Risk-Aware Robust Learning: Reducing Clinical Risk under Label Noise in Medical Image Classification
Pereira, M. R. S., & Cordeiro, F. R. (2026) · doi:10.5753/sbcas.2026.20827 · Cited by 1
Negrão, A., Silva, G., Vieira, M., Júnior, E. N. F. G., Luz, E. J. D. S., & Silva, P. H. C. B. (2026) · doi:10.5753/sbcas.2026.21342
Bai, L., Bai, Y., Guo, Y., et al. (2026) · European Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2026.113041
Öcal, A., Kılıç, K., & KILIÇ, K. (2026) · Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering · doi:10.1007/s13369-026-11464-y
Reverse neighborhood discriminant analysis for feature extraction
Huang, Y., Lai, Z., Kong, H., et al. (2026) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2026.123831
Saeed, A. (2026) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2026.116542
MedDATP: Adapting CLIP for few-shot medical image classification via domain adapter and task prompts
Zhang, Z., Jiang, Y., Wei, J. C., et al. (2026) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2026.133387
Explainable SLM-Guided Vision–Language Model for Multi-class Skin Lesion Recognition
Jeffin Gracewell, J., Yuvaraj, J., & Vikhram, S. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-30310-3_49
Mitigating data heterogeneity in federated learning via entropy-weighted aggregation
Zulueta, A., Zulueta, E., Zulueta-Perez, M., et al. (2026) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2026.134398
Weighted Sampling with Frequency-Aware Spatial Attention for Imbalanced Image Classification
Zhang, S., & Li, P. (2026) · Journal of Imaging · doi:10.3390/jimaging12070293
“We evaluate the proposed method on four datasets from the MedMNIST v2 collection [49], covering three imaging modalities and different levels of class imbalance.”
Decor: Delegated Computation on Randomness for Secure Evaluation of Nonlinear Functions
Smajlović, H., Sheng, K., Antonopoulos, T., et al. (2026) · Proceedings - IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy/Proceedings of the ... IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy · doi:10.1109/sp63933.2026.00256
“We trained a separate INR for each 64 64 image from MedMNIST [32] for 1,000 epochs.”
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