Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35418051›Full record

ReviewBMC medical imaging2022

Transfer learning for medical image classification: a literature review.

Hee E Kim, Alejandro Cosa-Linan, Nandhini Santhanam, Mahboubeh Jannesari, Mate E Maros, Thomas Ganslandt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 270 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
270citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

270 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. A Clinical Primer on Computer Vision.Calcified tissue international · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

210 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Hee E KimDepartment of Biomedical Informatics at the Center for Preventive Medicine and Digital Health (CPD-BW), Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany. HeeEun.Kim@medma.uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID 0000-0002-2826-2796
Alejandro Cosa-LinanDepartment of Biomedical Informatics at the Center for Preventive Medicine and Digital Health (CPD-BW), Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
Nandhini SanthanamDepartment of Biomedical Informatics at the Center for Preventive Medicine and Digital Health (CPD-BW), Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
Mahboubeh JannesariDepartment of Biomedical Informatics at the Center for Preventive Medicine and Digital Health (CPD-BW), Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
Mate E Maros *Department of Biomedical Informatics at the Center for Preventive Medicine and Digital Health (CPD-BW), Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
Thomas Ganslandt *Department of Biomedical Informatics at the Center for Preventive Medicine and Digital Health (CPD-BW), Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTransfer learning (TL) with convolutional neural networks aims to improve performances on a new task by leveraging the knowledge of similar tasks learned in advance. It has made a major contribution to medical image analysis as it overcomes the data scarcity problem as well as it saves time and hardware resources. However, transfer learning has been arbitrarily configured in the majority of studies. This review paper attempts to provide guidance for selecting a model and TL approaches for the medical image classification task.

methods425 peer-reviewed articles were retrieved from two databases, PubMed and Web of Science, published in English, up until December 31, 2020. Articles were assessed by two independent reviewers, with the aid of a third reviewer in the case of discrepancies. We followed the PRISMA guidelines for the paper selection and 121 studies were regarded as eligible for the scope of this review. We investigated articles focused on selecting backbone models and TL approaches including feature extractor, feature extractor hybrid, fine-tuning and fine-tuning from scratch.

resultsThe majority of studies (n = 57) empirically evaluated multiple models followed by deep models (n = 33) and shallow (n = 24) models. Inception, one of the deep models, was the most employed in literature (n = 26). With respect to the TL, the majority of studies (n = 46) empirically benchmarked multiple approaches to identify the optimal configuration. The rest of the studies applied only a single approach for which feature extractor (n = 38) and fine-tuning from scratch (n = 27) were the two most favored approaches. Only a few studies applied feature extractor hybrid (n = 7) and fine-tuning (n = 3) with pretrained models.

conclusionThe investigated studies demonstrated the efficacy of transfer learning despite the data scarcity. We encourage data scientists and practitioners to use deep models (e.g. ResNet or Inception) as feature extractors, which can save computational costs and time without degrading the predictive power.

Indexed as

Machine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerDatabases, FactualHumansConvolutional neural networkDeep learningFine-tuningMedical image analysisTransfer learning

Identifiers

PMID35418051
PMCPMC9007400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.