Performance comparison of medical image classification systems using TensorFlow Keras, PyTorch, and JAX
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Medical imaging plays a vital role in early disease diagnosis and monitoring. Specifically, blood microscopy offers valuable insights into blood cell morphology and the detection of hematological disorders. In recent years, deep learning-based automated classification systems have demonstrated high potential in enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of blood image analysis. However, a detailed performance analysis of specific deep learning frameworks appears to be lacking. This paper compares the performance of three popular deep learning frameworks, TensorFlow with Keras, PyTorch, and JAX, in classifying blood cell images from the publicly available BloodMNIST dataset. The study primarily focuses on inference time differences, but also classification performance for different image sizes. The results reveal variations in performance across frameworks, influenced by factors such as image resolution and framework-specific optimizations. Classification accuracy for JAX and PyTorch was comparable to current benchmarks, showcasing the efficiency of these frameworks for medical image classification.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Jul 2025.
Builds on
6 of 22 references.
References · 6
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,305
- 2021MedMNIST v2 -- A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classificationcited by 690
- 2020MedMNIST Classification Decathlon: A Lightweight AutoML Benchmark for Medical Image Analysiscited by 206
- 2024Semi-Supervised Disease Classification based on Limited Medical Image Datacited by 7
- 2023More for Less: Compact Convolutional Transformers Enable Robust Medical Image Classification with Limited Datacited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.