Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40044786›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Rethinking model prototyping through the MedMNIST+ dataset collection.

Sebastian Doerrich, Francesco Di Salvo, Julius Brockmann, Christian Ledig

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

4 authors.

Sebastian DoerrichUniversity of Bamberg, xAILab Bamberg, Bamberg, 96047, Germany. sebastian.doerrich@uni-bamberg.de.
Francesco Di SalvoUniversity of Bamberg, xAILab Bamberg, Bamberg, 96047, Germany.
Julius BrockmannUniversity of Bamberg, xAILab Bamberg, Bamberg, 96047, Germany.
Christian LedigUniversity of Bamberg, xAILab Bamberg, Bamberg, 96047, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The integration of deep learning based systems in clinical practice is often impeded by challenges rooted in limited and heterogeneous medical datasets. In addition, the field has increasingly prioritized marginal performance gains on a few, narrowly scoped benchmarks over clinical applicability, slowing down meaningful algorithmic progress. This trend often results in excessive fine-tuning of existing methods on selected datasets rather than fostering clinically relevant innovations. In response, this work introduces a comprehensive benchmark for the MedMNIST+ dataset collection, designed to diversify the evaluation landscape across several imaging modalities, anatomical regions, classification tasks and sample sizes. We systematically reassess commonly used Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Vision Transformer (ViT) architectures across distinct medical datasets, training methodologies, and input resolutions to validate and refine existing assumptions about model effectiveness and development. Our findings suggest that computationally efficient training schemes and modern foundation models offer viable alternatives to costly end-to-end training. Additionally, we observe that higher image resolutions do not consistently improve performance beyond a certain threshold. This highlights the potential benefits of using lower resolutions, particularly in prototyping stages, to reduce computational demands without sacrificing accuracy. Notably, our analysis reaffirms the competitiveness of CNNs compared to ViTs, emphasizing the importance of comprehending the intrinsic capabilities of different architectures. Finally, by establishing a standardized evaluation framework, we aim to enhance transparency, reproducibility, and comparability within the MedMNIST+ dataset collection as well as future research. Code is available at (https://github.com/sdoerrich97/rethinking-model-prototyping-MedMNISTPlus).

Indexed as

Deep LearningImage Processing, Computer-AssistedNeural Networks, ComputerAlgorithmsDatabases, FactualDatasets as TopicHumansBenchmarkingFoundation modelsMedical image classificationPrototyping recommendationsStandardized evaluation framework

Identifiers

PMID40044786
PMCPMC11883007

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.