Cited by 515Image Retrieval and Classification TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

An ensemble of fine-tuned convolutional neural networks for medical image classification

Open access
Kumar, Ashnil, Kim, Jinman, Lyndon, David, Fulham, Michael, Feng, Dagan·2017·IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics

Abstract

The availability of medical imaging data from clinical archives, research literature, and clinical manuals, coupled with recent advances in computer vision offer the opportunity for image-based diagnosis, teaching, and biomedical research. However, the content and semantics of an image can vary depending on its modality and as such the identification of image modality is an important preliminary step. The key challenge for automatically classifying the modality of a medical image is due to the visual characteristics of different modalities: some are visually distinct while others may have only subtle differences. This challenge is compounded by variations in the appearance of images based on the diseases depicted and a lack of sufficient training data for some modalities. In this paper, we introduce a new method for classifying medical images that uses an ensemble of different convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures. CNNs are a state-of-the-art image classification technique that learns the optimal image features for a given classification task. We hypothesise that different CNN architectures learn different levels of semantic image representation and thus an ensemble of CNNs will enable higher quality features to be extracted. Our method develops a new feature extractor by fine-tuning CNNs that have been initialized on a large dataset of natural images. The fine-tuning process leverages the generic image features from natural images that are fundamental for all images and optimizes them for the variety of medical imaging modalities. These features are used to train numerous multiclass classifiers whose posterior probabilities are fused to predict the modalities of unseen images. Our experiments on the ImageCLEF 2016 medical image public dataset (30 modalities; 6776 training images, and 4166 test images) show that our ensemble of fine-tuned CNNs achieves a higher accuracy than established CNNs. Our ensemble also achieves a higher accuracy than methods in the literature evaluated on the same benchmark dataset and is only overtaken by those methods that source additional training data.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/jbhi.2016.2635663

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • DTL significantly reduces the demand for training data and training time for a target domain-specific task by choosing a pre-trained model for a fixed feature extractor or for further fine-tuning.

    “DTL significantly reduces the demand for training data and training time for a target domain-specific task by choosing a pre-trained model (trained on another large dataset of same target domain) for a fixed feature extractor [44] or for further fine-tuning [45].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. M. Abedini, L. Cao, N. Codella, J. H. Connell, R. Garnavi, A. Geva, M. Merler, Q.-B. Nguyen, S. U. Pankanti, J. R. Smith, X. Sun, and A. Tzadok, "IBM research at ImageCLEF 2013 medical tasks," in CLEF 2013 Working Notes, ser. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1179, 2013.
  2. D. Lyndon, A. Kumar, J. Kim, P. H. W. Leong, and D. Feng, "Con- volutional neural networks for medical classification," in CLEF 2015 Working Notes, ser. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1391, 2015.
  3. D. Semedo and J. Magalhães, "NovaSearch at ImageCLEFmed 2016 Subfigure Classification Task," in CLEF 2016 Working Notes, ser. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1609, 2016, pp. 386-398.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kumar, A., Kim, J., Lyndon, D., Fulham, M., & Feng, D.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Venue
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
Published
2017-01
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
31-40
ISSN
  • 2168-2194 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-2208
OpenAlex
W2559785631
Cited by
515
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 88 · 2020: 83 · 2019: 61 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 17
FWCI
26.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney) (submittedVersion)
Funders
ARC
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Retrieval and Classification Techniques
  • 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
Keywords
ensemble convolutional neural networks, fine-tuning, feature extraction, medical image classification
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Diagnostic Imaging, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Neural Networks, Computer, Electronic Health Records

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.

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