mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Automatic Labels are as Effective as Manual Labels in Biomedical Images Classification with Deep Learning

arXiv 2406.14351 ↗First posted 20 Jun 2024eess.IV cs.AI cs.CVcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The increasing availability of biomedical data is helping to design more robust deep learning (DL) algorithms to analyze biomedical samples. Currently, one of the main limitations to train DL algorithms to perform a specific task is the need for medical experts to label data. Automatic methods to label data exist, however automatic labels can be noisy and it is not completely clear when automatic labels can be adopted to train DL models. This paper aims to investigate under which circumstances automatic labels can be adopted to train a DL model on the classification of Whole Slide Images (WSI). The analysis involves multiple architectures, such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) and Vision Transformer (ViT), and over 10000 WSIs, collected from three use cases: celiac disease, lung cancer and colon cancer, which one including respectively binary, multiclass and multilabel data. The results allow identifying 10% as the percentage of noisy labels that lead to train competitive models for the classification of WSIs. Therefore, an algorithm generating automatic labels needs to fit this criterion to be adopted. The application of the Semantic Knowledge Extractor Tool (SKET) algorithm to generate automatic labels leads to performance comparable to the one obtained with manual labels, since it generates a percentage of noisy labels between 2-5%. Automatic labels are as effective as manual ones, reaching solid performance comparable to the one obtained training models with manual labels.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Jun 2024.

Builds on

18 of 48 references.

References · 18

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2020A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representationscited by 12,049
  3. 2023DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervisioncited by 7,974
  4. 2013Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionalitycited by 3,474
  5. 2018Attention-based Deep Multiple Instance Learningcited by 1,095
  6. 2020Data Efficient and Weakly Supervised Computational Pathology on Whole Slide Imagescited by 745
  7. 2018Albumentations: fast and flexible image augmentationscited by 560
  8. 2021TransMIL: Transformer based Correlated Multiple Instance Learning for Whole Slide Image Classificationcited by 555
  9. 2022Scaling Vision Transformers to Gigapixel Images via Hierarchical Self-Supervised Learningcited by 359
  10. 2019ScispaCy: Fast and Robust Models for Biomedical Natural Language Processingcited by 244
  11. 2018Marian: Fast Neural Machine Translation in C++cited by 203
  12. 2019Deep learning with noisy labels: exploring techniques and remedies in medical image analysiscited by 173
6 more
  1. 2016Multiple Instance Learning: A Survey of Problem Characteristics and Applicationscited by 164
  2. 2021An Image is Worth 16x16 Words, What is a Video Worth?cited by 87
  3. 2020Multi-scale Domain-adversarial Multiple-instance CNN for Cancer Subtype Classification with Unannotated Histopathological Imagescited by 81
  4. 2018A Comparison of Five Multiple Instance Learning Pooling Functions for Sound Event Detection with Weak Labelingcited by 38
  5. 2021Machine Learning Methods for Histopathological Image Analysis: A Reviewcited by 10
  6. 2022H&E-adversarial network: a convolutional neural network to learn stain-invariant features through Hematoxylin & Eosin regressioncited by 5

Built on by

Not cited yet.