ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative analysis of supervised and self-supervised learning with small and imbalanced medical imaging datasets.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in small tissue biopsies: diagnostic applications, histochemical integration, and methodological challenges in surgical pathology.Histochemistry and cell biology · 2026Review
- Unsupervised risk factor identification across cancer types and data modalities via explainable artificial intelligence.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- The impact of AI on modern oncology from early detection to personalized cancer treatment.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Review
- Enhancing Approaches to Detect Papilloma-Associated Hyperostosis Using a Few-Shot Transfer Learning Framework in Extremely Scarce Radiological Datasets.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Self-supervised learning (SSL) in computer vision has shown its potential to reduce reliance on labeled data. However, most studies focused on balanced, large, broad-domain datasets like ImageNet, whereas, in real-world medical applications, dataset size is typically limited. This study compares the performance of SSL versus supervised learning (SL) on small, imbalanced medical imaging datasets. We experimented with four binary classification tasks: age prediction and diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease from brain magnetic resonance imaging scans, pneumonia from chest radiograms, and retinal diseases associated with choroidal neovascularization from optical coherence tomography with a mean size of training sets of 843 images, 771 images, 1,214 images, and 33,484 images, respectively. We tested various combinations of label availability and class frequency distribution, repeating the training with different random seeds to assess result uncertainty. In most experiments involving small training sets, SL outperformed the selected SSL paradigms, even when a limited portion of labeled data was available. Our findings highlight the importance of carefully selecting learning paradigms based on specific application requirements, which are influenced by factors such as training set size, label availability, and class frequency distribution.
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.