mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Robustness of transferability estimation metrics for medical imaging

arXiv 2608.09999 ↗First posted 7 Aug 2026eess.IV cs.CVcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In transfer learning, the choice of source model largely influences the performance on a target dataset. Still, selecting a fitting source remains a challenging task, especially in medical imaging where one has to decide between models pre-trained on off-the-shelf options, such as ImageNet, and domain specific datasets. Transferability estimation (TE) metrics address this problem by aiming to predict the best performing source model in a computationally cost effective way. However, previous work has reported conflicting TE metric performances due to differences in experimental setups. Moreover, most TE metrics are designed for and evaluated on natural images, while being optimized for accuracy, whereas in medical imaging metrics that are more robust to class imbalance are typically used. We study the impact of varying the target dataset as an isolated factor, by constructing miniature populations of different sample sizes and random seeds. In addition, we investigate the influence of the evaluation metric used to obtain the reference ranking. We find that small modifications to the target dataset change the rankings. Furthermore, we show that the choice of evaluation metric affects the reference rankings and therefore the evaluation of TE metrics. Overall, we observe a low agreement between rankings from TE metrics and reference. The code, model checkpoints and data splits used in this work are available through https://github.com/niclasclassen/robustness-of-transferability-estimation-metrics-for-medical-imaging.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Aug 2026.

Builds on

23 of 32 references.

References · 23

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
  2. 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,305
  3. 2016SGDR: Stochastic Gradient Descent with Warm Restartscited by 5,045
  4. 2019Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Frameworkcited by 2,501
  5. 2021MedMNIST v2 -- A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classificationcited by 690
  6. 2018Rotation Equivariant CNNs for Digital Pathologycited by 422
  7. 2019Transfusion: Understanding Transfer Learning for Medical Imagingcited by 368
  8. 2020LEEP: A New Measure to Evaluate Transferability of Learned Representationscited by 188
  9. 2018Not-so-supervised: a survey of semi-supervised, multi-instance, and transfer learning in medical image analysiscited by 179
  10. 2021LogME: Practical Assessment of Pre-trained Models for Transfer Learningcited by 172
  11. 2020Carbontracker: Tracking and Predicting the Carbon Footprint of Training Deep Learning Modelscited by 169
  12. 2019Transferability and Hardness of Supervised Classification Taskscited by 127
11 more
  1. 2022An Information-Theoretic Approach to Transferability in Task Transfer Learningcited by 81
  2. 2021Factors of Influence for Transfer Learning across Diverse Appearance Domains and Task Typescited by 54
  3. 2021Transferability Estimation using Bhattacharyya Class Separabilitycited by 54
  4. 2020Ranking Neural Checkpointscited by 51
  5. 2021Scalable Diverse Model Selection for Accessible Transfer Learningcited by 40
  6. 2022How stable are Transferability Metrics evaluations?cited by 30
  7. 2022Not All Models Are Equal: Predicting Model Transferability in a Self-challenging Fisher Spacecited by 30
  8. 2022Data Representativity for Machine Learning and AI Systemscited by 15
  9. 2023The Performance of Transferability Metrics does not Translate to Medical Taskscited by 7
  10. 2024On dataset transferability in medical image classificationcited by 3
  11. 2026From pre-training to downstream performance: Does domain-specific pre-training make sense?cited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.