ArticlePloS one2020
How much off-the-shelf knowledge is transferable from natural images to pathology images?
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simplified Artificial Intelligence Terminology for Pathologists.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A Systematic Comparison of Task Adaptation Techniques for Digital Histopathology.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A Deep Learning Computer-Aided Diagnosis Approach for Breast Cancer.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Validating Automatic Concept-Based Explanations for AI-Based Digital Histopathology.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Improving feature extraction from histopathological images through a fine-tuning ImageNet model.Journal of pathology informatics · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep learning has achieved a great success in natural image classification. To overcome data-scarcity in computational pathology, recent studies exploit transfer learning to reuse knowledge gained from natural images in pathology image analysis, aiming to build effective pathology image diagnosis models. Since transferability of knowledge heavily depends on the similarity of the original and target tasks, significant differences in image content and statistics between pathology images and natural images raise the questions: how much knowledge is transferable? Is the transferred information equally contributed by pre-trained layers? If not, is there a sweet spot in transfer learning that balances transferred model's complexity and performance? To answer these questions, this paper proposes a framework to quantify knowledge gain by a particular layer, conducts an empirical investigation in pathology image centered transfer learning, and reports some interesting observations. Particularly, compared to the performance baseline obtained by a random-weight model, though transferability of off-the-shelf representations from deep layers heavily depend on specific pathology image sets, the general representation generated by early layers does convey transferred knowledge in various image classification applications. The trade-off between transferable performance and transferred model's complexity observed in this study encourages further investigation of specific metric and tools to quantify effectiveness of transfer learning in future.
Indexed as
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.