Cited by 341Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

Radimagenet: an open Radiologic deep learning research Dataset for effective transfer learning

Open access
Mei, Xueyan, Liu, Zelong, Robson, Philip M., Marinelli, Brett, Huang, Mingqian, Doshi, Amish, Jacobi, Adam, Cao, Chendi +7 more·2022·Radiology Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Purpose To demonstrate the value of pretraining with millions of radiologic images compared with ImageNet photographic images on downstream medical applications when using transfer learning. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included patients who underwent a radiologic study between 2005 and 2020 at an outpatient imaging facility. Key images and associated labels from the studies were retrospectively extracted from the original study interpretation. These images were used for RadImageNet model training with random weight initiation. The RadImageNet models were compared with ImageNet models using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for eight classification tasks and using Dice scores for two segmentation problems. Results The RadImageNet database consists of 1.35 million annotated medical images in 131 872 patients who underwent CT, MRI, and US for musculoskeletal, neurologic, oncologic, gastrointestinal, endocrine, abdominal, and pulmonary pathologic conditions. For transfer learning tasks on small datasets—thyroid nodules (US), breast masses (US), anterior cruciate ligament injuries (MRI), and meniscal tears (MRI)—the RadImageNet models demonstrated a significant advantage (P < .001) to ImageNet models (9.4%, 4.0%, 4.8%, and 4.5% AUC improvements, respectively). For larger datasets—pneumonia (chest radiography), COVID-19 (CT), SARS-CoV-2 (CT), and intracranial hemorrhage (CT)—the RadImageNet models also illustrated improved AUC (P < .001) by 1.9%, 6.1%, 1.7%, and 0.9%, respectively. Additionally, lesion localizations of the RadImageNet models were improved by 64.6% and 16.4% on thyroid and breast US datasets, respectively. Conclusion RadImageNet pretrained models demonstrated better interpretability compared with ImageNet models, especially for smaller radiologic datasets. Keywords: CT, MR Imaging, US, Head/Neck, Thorax, Brain/Brain Stem, Evidence-based Medicine, Computer Applications–General (Informatics) Supplemental material is available for this article. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. See also the commentary by Cadrin-Chênevert in this issue.

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 · 10.1148/ryai.210315

Cites

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?

  • RadImageNet is an open radiologic deep learning data set that consists of 1.35 million radiologic images for efficient transfer learning.

    “A milestone in medical imaging data was achieved in 2022 with the publication of RadImageNet, 43 an open radiologic deep learning data set that consists of 1.35 million radiologic images for efficient transfer learning.”

    From AI pitfalls and what not to do: mitigating bias in AI (2023) · cites this paper as [43]

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 25 · Cited by 341

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. [1]Deng J, Dong W, Socher R, Li LJ, Li K, Fei-Fei L. ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In: 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Miami, FL, June 20–25, 2009. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2009; 248 – 255.
  2. [8]Wang X, Peng Y, Lu L, Lu Z, Bagheri M, Summers RM. ChestX-Ray8: hospital-scale chest x-ray database and benchmarks on weakly-supervised classification and localization of common thorax diseases. In: 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Honolulu, HI, July 21–26, 2017. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2017; 3462 – 3471.
  3. [11]He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Las Vegas, NV, June 27–30, 2016. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2016; 770 – 778.
  4. [12]Szegedy C, Vanhoucke V, Ioffe S, Shlens J, Wojna Z. Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. In: 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Las Vegas, NV, June 27–30, 2016. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2016; 2818 – 2826.
  5. [13]Szegedy C, Ioffe S, Vanhoucke V, Alemi A. Inception-v4, Inception-ResNet and the impact of residual connections on learning. Proc Conf AAAI Artif Intell 2017; 31 (1).
  6. [14]Huang G, Liu Z, van der Maaten L, Weinberger KQ. Densely connected convolutional networks. In: 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Honolulu, HI, July 21–26, 2017. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2017; 2261 – 2269.
  7. [23]Pedraza L, Vargas C, Narváez F, Durán O, Muñoz E, Romero E. An open access thyroid ultrasound image database. In: Romero E, Lepore N, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: 10th International Symposium on Medical Information Processing and Analysis. Vol 9287. Bellingham, Wash: International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2015; 92870W.
  8. [30]David HA, Gunnink JL. The paired t test under artificial pairing. Am Stat 1997; 51 (1): 9 – 12.
  9. [32]Mohd Razali N, Yap BW. Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. J Stat Model Anal 2011; 2 (1): 21 – 33. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1714/ML17143A100.pdf.
  10. [36]Seeram E. Computed Tomography-E-Book: Physical Principles, Clinical Applications, and Quality Control. St Louis, Mo: Elsevier Health Sciences, 2015.

Authors
Mei, X., Liu, Z., Robson, P. M., Marinelli, B., Huang, M., Doshi, A., Jacobi, A., Cao, C., Link, K. E., Yang, T., Wang, Y., Greenspan, H., Deyer, T., Fayad, Z. A., & Yang, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Oklahoma (US)
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Yang, Yang
Venue
Radiology Artificial Intelligence
Published
2022-09-01
Volume
4
Issue
5
Pages
e210315-e210315
ISSN
2638-6100 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4288068240
Cited by
341
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 78 · 2025: 118 · 2024: 81 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 9
FWCI
19.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Radiology Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Keywords
transfer learning, pre-trained models, medical image classification, medical image segmentation, thyroid nodules, breast mass, anterior cruciate ligament injury, meniscal tears, pneumonia, COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2, intracranial hemorrhage, lesion localization, musculoskeletal imaging, tumor imaging, gastrointestinal imaging, endocrine imaging, abdominal imaging, lung imaging

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