Cited by 3,277Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsMedical Image Segmentation Techniques

Convolutional Neural Networks for Medical Image Analysis: Full Training or Fine Tuning?

Open access
Tajbakhsh, Nima, Shin, Jae Y., Gurudu, Suryakanth R., Hurst, R. Todd, Kendall, Christopher B., Gotway, Michael B., Liang, Jianming·2016·IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging

Abstract

Training a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) from scratch is difficult because it requires a large amount of labeled training data and a great deal of expertise to ensure proper convergence. A promising alternative is to fine-tune a CNN that has been pre-trained using, for instance, a large set of labeled natural images. However, the substantial differences between natural and medical images may advise against such knowledge transfer. In this paper, we seek to answer the following central question in the context of medical image analysis: Can the use of pre-trained deep CNNs with sufficient fine-tuning eliminate the need for training a deep CNN from scratch? To address this question, we considered four distinct medical imaging applications in three specialties (radiology, cardiology, and gastroenterology) involving classification, detection, and segmentation from three different imaging modalities, and investigated how the performance of deep CNNs trained from scratch compared with the pre-trained CNNs fine-tuned in a layer-wise manner. Our experiments consistently demonstrated that 1) the use of a pre-trained CNN with adequate fine-tuning outperformed or, in the worst case, performed as well as a CNN trained from scratch; 2) fine-tuned CNNs were more robust to the size of training sets than CNNs trained from scratch; 3) neither shallow tuning nor deep tuning was the optimal choice for a particular application; and 4) our layer-wise fine-tuning scheme could offer a practical way to reach the best performance for the application at hand based on the amount of available 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/tmi.2016.2535302

Cites

81 of 81 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?

  • Initializing the network with a pretrained model trained on relatively large datasets can significantly accelerate training convergence, reduce overfitting, and improve accuracy to some extent.

    “initializing the network with a pretrained model that has been trained with relatively large datasets can significantly accelerate the training convergence, reduce overfitting, and improve the accuracy to some extent (Tajbakhsh et al., 2016).”

    From Deep Learning-Based Classification and Voxel-Based Visualization of Frontotemporal Dementia and Alzheimer's Disease (2021) · cites this paper as Tajbakhsh et al., 2016

    The Fine-Tuning section (p. 3) describes initializing from a network pretrained on a massive labeled dataset. The Discussion (p. 11) reports faster convergence and comparable or better performance with adequate fine-tuning. The Introduction (p. 1) identifies overfitting as a problem when training from scratch, but the paper does not establish that pretrained initialization reduces overfitting. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Handling unseen objects is a major advantage over traditional CNNs and even transfer learning or weakly supervised learning, because for some objects it requires no annotated training instances.

    “Dealing with unseen objects is a major advantage compared with traditional CNNs and even transfer learning [25] or weakly supervised learning [3], since for some objects it does not require annotated instances for training at all.”
  • The challenge of generalization extends to variations in imaging protocols, patient populations, and staining techniques in digital pathology.

    “This challenge extends to variations in imaging protocols, patient populations, and even staining techniques in digital pathology [125,126].”
  • Transfer learning from natural images has been widely adopted for medical image classification; however the application to medical image segmentation has been scarce.

    “Transfer learning from natural images has been widely adopted for medical image classification Tajbakhsh et al. (2016); Shin et al. (2016); however the application to medical image segmentation has been scarce.”
  • Fine-tuning a pre-trained model generally performs better than a model trained from scratch.

    “These findings were reinforced in [120] to demonstrate that fine-tuning a pre-trained model generally performs better than a model trained from scratch.”

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: 2

  1. [20][20] H. Roth, L. Lu, A. Seff, K. Cherry, J. Hoffman, S. Wang, J. Liu, E. Turkbey, and R. Summers, 'A new 2.5d representation for lymph node detection using random sets of deep convolutional neural network observations,' in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention MICCAI 2014 , ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, P. Golland, N. Hata, C. Barillot, J. Hornegger, and R. Howe, Eds. Springer International Publishing, 2014, vol. 8673, pp. 520-527. -
  2. [55][55] Y. Wang, W. Tavanapong, J. Wong, J. Oh, and P. de Groen, 'Partbased multi-derivative edge cross-section profiles for polyp detection in colonoscopy,' Biomedical and Health Informatics, IEEE Journal of , vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1-1, 2013. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tajbakhsh, N., Shin, J. Y., Gurudu, S. R., Hurst, R. T., Kendall, C. B., Gotway, M. B., & Liang, J.
Affiliations
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Mayo Clinic in Arizona (US)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
Published
2016-05
Volume
35
Issue
5
Pages
1299-1312
ISSN
  • 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-254X
OpenAlex
W2346062110
Cited by
3,277
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 307 · 2025: 345 · 2024: 322 · 2023: 338 · 2022: 366 · 2021: 427 · 2020: 387 · 2019: 385 · 2018: 256 · 2017: 117 · 2016: 25 · 2012: 1
FWCI
214.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
Keywords
convolutional neural networks, transfer learning, fine-tuning, pre-trained models, training from scratch, layer-wise fine-tuning, medical image analysis, radiology, gastroenterology, image classification, object detection, image segmentation, training data size
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Computed Tomography Angiography, Colonic Polyps, Colonoscopy, Diagnostic Imaging, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Pulmonary Embolism, ROC Curve, Neural Networks, Computer

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