arXiv subjects

Hubert Dariusz Zając

Publications and source records attributed to Hubert Dariusz Zając.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Intuitions of Machine Learning Researchers about Transfer Learning for Medical Image Classification

Transfer learning is crucial for medical imaging, yet the selection of source datasets often relies on researchers' intuition rather than systematic principles, which can impact the generalizability of algorithms and, thus, patient outcomes. This study investigates these decisions through a task-based survey with machine learning practitioners. Unlike prior work that benchmarks models and experimental setups, we take a human-computer interaction (HCI) perspective on how practitioners select source datasets. Our findings indicate that choices are task-dependent and influenced by community practices, dataset properties, and computational (data embedding), or perceived visual or semantic similarity. However, similarity ratings and expected performance are not always aligned, challenging a traditional "more similar is better" view. Moreover, ethical and fairness considerations remain largely absent from source dataset sections. Participants often used ambiguous terminology, which suggests a need for clearer definitions and tools to make them explicit and usable. By clarifying these heuristics and introducing a conceptual framework of transfer learning factors, this work provides practical insights for more systematic source selection in transfer learning.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

In the Picture: Medical Imaging Datasets, Artifacts, and their Living Review

Datasets play a critical role in medical imaging research, yet issues such as label quality, shortcuts, and metadata are often overlooked. This lack of attention may harm the generalizability of algorithms and, consequently, negatively impact patient outcomes. While existing medical imaging literature reviews mostly focus on machine learning (ML) methods, with only a few focusing on datasets for specific applications, these reviews remain static -- they are published once and not updated thereafter. This fails to account for emerging evidence, such as biases, shortcuts, and additional annotations that other researchers may contribute after the dataset is published. We refer to these newly discovered findings of datasets as research artifacts. To address this gap, we propose a living review that continuously tracks public datasets and their associated research artifacts across multiple medical imaging applications. Our approach includes a framework for the living review to monitor data documentation artifacts, and an SQL database to visualize the citation relationships between research artifact and dataset. Lastly, we discuss key considerations for creating medical imaging datasets, review best practices for data annotation, discuss the significance of shortcuts and demographic diversity, and emphasize the importance of managing datasets throughout their entire lifecycle. Our demo is publicly available at http://inthepicture.itu.dk/.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2024

Copycats: the many lives of a publicly available medical imaging dataset

Medical Imaging (MI) datasets are fundamental to artificial intelligence in healthcare. The accuracy, robustness, and fairness of diagnostic algorithms depend on the data (and its quality) used to train and evaluate the models. MI datasets used to be proprietary, but have become increasingly available to the public, including on community-contributed platforms (CCPs) like Kaggle or HuggingFace. While open data is important to enhance the redistribution of data's public value, we find that the current CCP governance model fails to uphold the quality needed and recommended practices for sharing, documenting, and evaluating datasets. In this paper, we conduct an analysis of publicly available machine learning datasets on CCPs, discussing datasets' context, and identifying limitations and gaps in the current CCP landscape. We highlight differences between MI and computer vision datasets, particularly in the potentially harmful downstream effects from poor adoption of recommended dataset management practices. We compare the analyzed datasets across several dimensions, including data sharing, data documentation, and maintenance. We find vague licenses, lack of persistent identifiers and storage, duplicates, and missing metadata, with differences between the platforms. Our research contributes to efforts in responsible data curation and AI algorithms for healthcare.

cs.CV↗