Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Unsupervised Contrastive Learning of Image Representations from Ultrasound Videos with Hard Negative Mining

Image and Video Processing · Submitted 26 Jul 2022

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim We show that the standard ResNet50 backbone trained with our framework improves the accuracy of models pretrained with SOTA UCL techniques as well as supervised pretrained models on ImageNet for the GB malignancy detection task by 2-6%.

how it is stated · asserted 1.00 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID2207.13148 (version 1)
Pith IDEIEJN44N, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationChetan Arora, Mayank Gupta, Pankaj Gupta, Pratyaksha Rana, Somanshu Singla, Soumen Basu. "Unsupervised Contrastive Learning of Image Representations from Ultrasound Videos with Hard Negative Mining." arXiv:2207.13148 (2022). https://pith.science/paper/EIEJN44N
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 8,248 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.75 · states limitation 0.13 · human participants 0.64 · controlled comparison 0.81 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.99 · compares with prior results 0.97 · mentions code or data availability 0.99.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

Rich temporal information and variations in viewpoints make video data an attractive choice for learning image representations using unsupervised contrastive learning (UCL) techniques. State-of-the-art (SOTA) contrastive learning techniques consider frames within a video as positives in the embedding space, whereas the frames from other videos are considered negatives. We observe that unlike multiple views of an object in natural scene videos, an Ultrasound (US) video captures different 2D slices of an organ. Hence, there is almost no similarity between the temporally distant frames of even the same US video. In this paper we propose to instead utilize such frames as hard negatives. We advocate mining both intra-video and cross-video negatives in a hardness-sensitive negative mining curriculum in a UCL framework to learn rich image representations. We deploy our framework to learn the representations of Gallbladder (GB) malignancy from US videos. We also construct the first large-scale US video dataset containing 64 videos and 15,800 frames for learning GB representations. We show that the standard ResNet50 backbone trained with our framework improves the accuracy of models pretrained with SOTA UCL techniques as well as supervised pretrained models on ImageNet for the GB malignancy detection task by 2-6%. We further validate the generalizability of our method on a publicly available lung US image dataset of COVID-19 pathologies and show an improvement of 1.5% compared to SOTA. Source code, dataset, and models are available at https://gbc-iitd.github.io/usucl.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 Rich temporal information and variations in viewpoints make video data an attractive choice for learning image representations using unsupervised contrastive learning (UCL) techniques. background 1.00 0.08 0.02 asserted 0.96
s1 State-of-the-art (SOTA) contrastive learning techniques consider frames within a video as positives in the embedding space, whereas the frames from other videos are considered negatives. background 1.00 0.05 0.03 asserted 1.00
s2 We observe that unlike multiple views of an object in natural scene videos, an Ultrasound (US) video captures different 2D slices of an organ. background 0.40 0.58 0.03 asserted 1.00
s3 Hence, there is almost no similarity between the temporally distant frames of even the same US video. background 0.43 0.68 0.04 asserted 0.96
s4 In this paper we propose to instead utilize such frames as hard negatives. contribution 0.59 0.64 0.13 asserted 0.94
s5 We advocate mining both intra-video and cross-video negatives in a hardness-sensitive negative mining curriculum in a UCL framework to learn rich image representations. method 0.82 0.75 0.18 asserted 0.93
s6 We deploy our framework to learn the representations of Gallbladder (GB) malignancy from US videos. contribution 0.68 0.95 0.04 asserted 0.97
s7 We also construct the first large-scale US video dataset containing 64 videos and 15,800 frames for learning GB representations. contribution 0.90 0.97 0.05 asserted 1.00
s8 We show that the standard ResNet50 backbone trained with our framework improves the accuracy of models pretrained with SOTA UCL techniques as well as supervised pretrained models on ImageNet for the GB malignancy detection task by 2-6%. result 1.00 0.97 0.47 asserted 1.00
s9 We further validate the generalizability of our method on a publicly available lung US image dataset of COVID-19 pathologies and show an improvement of 1.5% compared to SOTA. result 1.00 0.96 0.12 asserted 1.00
s10 Source code, dataset, and models are available at https://gbc-iitd.github.io/usucl. contribution 0.90 0.48 0.02 asserted 0.98

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: method or tool 1.00 · evidence from observation or experiment 0.99.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

Rich temporal information and variations in viewpoints make video data an attractive choice for learning image representations using unsupervised contrastive learning (UCL) techniques. State-of-the-art (SOTA) contrastive learning techniques consider frames within a video as positives in the embedding space, whereas the frames from other videos are considered negatives. We observe that unlike multiple views of an object in natural scene videos, an Ultrasound (US) video captures different 2D slices of an organ. Hence, there is almost no similarity between the temporally distant frames of even the same US video. In this paper we propose to instead utilize such frames as hard negatives. We advocate mining both intra-video and cross-video negatives in a hardness-sensitive negative mining curriculum in a UCL framework to learn rich image representations. We deploy our framework to learn the representations of Gallbladder (GB) malignancy from US videos. We also construct the first large-scale US video dataset containing 64 videos and 15,800 frames for learning GB representations. We show that the standard ResNet50 backbone trained with our framework improves the accuracy of models pretrained with SOTA UCL techniques as well as supervised pretrained models on ImageNet for the GB malignancy detection task by 2-6%. We further validate the generalizability of our method on a publicly available lung US image dataset of COVID-19 pathologies and show an improvement of 1.5% compared to SOTA. Source code, dataset, and models are available at https://gbc-iitd.github.io/usucl.

Human review
How the literature uses it

What this paper does with the arXiv papers it cites

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

What it cites

Uses data or values from 2 papers

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.