ArticlePattern recognition letters2008
Effectiveness of Global Features for Automatic Medical Image Classification and Retrieval - the experiences of OHSU at ImageCLEFmed.
Article in Pattern recognition letters, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Novel Medical Freehand Sketch 3D Model Retrieval Method by Dimensionality Reduction and Feature Vector Transformation.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In 2006 and 2007, Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) participated in the automatic image annotation task for medical images at ImageCLEF, an annual international benchmarking event that is part of the Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF). The goal of the automatic annotation task was to classify 1000 test images based on the Image Retrieval in Medical Applications (IRMA) code, given a set of 10,000 training images. There were 116 distinct classes in 2006 and 2007. We evaluated the efficacy of a variety of primarily global features for this classification task. These included features based on histograms, gray level correlation matrices and the gist technique. A multitude of classifiers including k-nearest neighbors, two-level neural networks, support vector machines, and maximum likelihood classifiers were evaluated. Our official error rates for the 1000 test images were 26% in 2006 using the flat classification structure. The error count in 2007 was 67.8 using the hierarchical classification error computation based on the IRMA code in 2007. Confusion matrices as well as clustering experiments were used to identify visually similar classes. The use of the IRMA code did not help us in the classification task as the semantic hierarchy of the IRMA classes did not correspond well with the hierarchy based on clustering of image features that we used. Our most frequent misclassification errors were along the view axis. Subsequent experiments based on a two-stage classification system decreased our error rate to 19.8% for the 2006 dataset and our error count to 55.4 for the 2007 data.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.