Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 128 references

Exploring Compositional Generalization of Multimodal LLMs for Medical Imaging

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Multimodal language models generalize to unseen medical images by recombining modality, anatomy, and task factors; this compositional mechanism accounts for most multi-task training gains.

desk verdict A substantial new benchmark and a clear empirical pattern, but the causal claim about compositional generalization overreaches the Related-vs-Unrelated design. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20070 v2 pith:VMOMLD3Y submitted 2024-12-28 cs.CV cs.AIcs.CLcs.LG

Zhenyang Cai , Junying Chen , Rongsheng Wang , Weihong Wang , Yonglin Deng , Dingjie Song , Yize Chen , Zixu Zhang
show 1 more author
Benyou Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.CLcs.LG
keywords compositionalgeneralizationmultimodallargelanguagemodelsmedicalimagingvisualquestionansweringmulti-tasklearningdata-efficientMed-MATmodality-anatomy-tasktriplet
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that multimodal large language models (MLLMs) understand unseen medical images through compositional generalization: they learn separable factors and recombine them for novel combinations. Since every medical image can be described by a Modality, an Anatomical area, and a medical Task, the authors built Med-MAT, a collection of 106 datasets organized into 53 subsets across 11 modalities, 14 areas, and 13 tasks, as a controlled testbed. Across experiments, training on data that shares at least one MAT factor with a target dataset improves target accuracy compared with training on equally sized unrelated data, and removing that shared factor erases the improvement. The paper concludes that compositional generalization is one of the main drivers of the generalization observed in multi-task MLLM training. If correct, related medical data can stand in for scarce target data, and entirely new medical imaging tasks could be handled without dedicated training examples.

What carries the argument

The MAT-Triplet decomposition: every medical image is assigned one Modality, one Anatomical area, and one medical Task, and datasets sharing the same triplet are merged into subsets. The argument treats these three labels as independent, recombinable factors, so that training on, say, CT-Lung-Cancer and X-ray-Brain-Cancer should support the unseen combination CT-Brain-Cancer. The central controlled comparison is Related versus Baseline+: equal-size training sets that either do or do not share at least one MAT element with the target, isolating the compositional contribution from raw data volume. A scaling experiment then disrupts CG by dropping one element at a time from the related pool, showing that the shared element is what carries the transfer.

What would settle it

Match two training pools for low-level image statistics and data-source overlap while differing only in whether their manually assigned MAT labels share an element with the target; if target accuracy is equal across the pools, the compositional interpretation is wrong. A second check is to reassign MAT tags randomly across a fixed image pool and split into related and unrelated by the reassigned tags, then see whether target accuracy follows the tags or the image content.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that MLLMs exhibit compositional generalization over the MAT-Triplet: a model that has seen one factor in some contexts can recombine it with other learned factors to handle a target combination it never saw during training. Concretely, training on datasets that share at least one MAT-Triplet element with the target improves target accuracy, while training on equally sized unrelated data leaves accuracy near random. This transfer appears across three MLLM backbones, across classification and detection tasks, and when all three elements of the target come from three different datasets. Deliberately removing a shared element from otherwise related training data causes a large accuracy drop, and training on all related data matches the performance of training on all available data, which the paper reads as evidence that compositional generalization is a principal mechanism behind multi-task generalization.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Modality, Anatomical area, and Task are the right independent, transferable factors, so that sharing any one of them is what causes the target gain; if the improvements actually come from low-level image similarity, overlapping data sources, or generic multi-task regularization that merely correlates with the tags, the compositional interpretation does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Related medical data can substitute for target data in low-resource settings: adding related combinations alongside a small amount of target data reaches peak accuracy faster than target data alone.
  • A newly emerging condition, such as a novel disease, could be handled without any dedicated target training examples if the model is trained on data sharing at least one MAT element with the new imaging task.
  • Multi-task training benefits in medical MLLMs come largely from overlapping MAT factors, so constructing multi-task curricula around such overlap should be more effective than mixing arbitrary medical data.
  • The effect generalizes across different MLLM architectures and across classification, detection, and segmentation, so the mechanism is not an artifact of one model family.
  • Because disrupting CG reduces but does not eliminate generalization, other generalization mechanisms also contribute alongside compositional generalization.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the MAT decomposition is the true causal structure, the same selection rule should transfer to other descriptive axes; the appendix's population-group and finer-disease results hint that the triplet could be extended, though the paper does not claim that as a main result.
  • A practical selection heuristic follows: before collecting target labels for a new medical imaging task, fine-tune on any public data sharing at least one MAT element with the target, and use that as a cheap baseline.
  • The compositional account predicts a gradient: transfer should scale with the number of shared elements and with the diversity within each element; this gradient is only partially tested and could be measured directly.
  • The same decompositional logic should apply outside medicine to any domain with orthogonal, recombinable descriptive factors, but the paper only provides evidence for medical images.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Med-MAT, a VQA dataset built from 106 public medical image datasets, reorganized into 53 subsets tagged with a MAT-Triplet (Modality, Anatomical area, medical Task). Using LLaVA-v1.5-7B and two additional backbones, the authors compare generalization to a target subset after training on data that shares at least one MAT element (Related) versus data sharing none (Baseline+/All Unrelated). They report that Related training substantially outperforms Unrelated training, that removing shared MAT elements from multi-task training degrades performance, and that related data help in low-data and cross-task (classification/detection) settings. They conclude that compositional generalization is a main driver of multi-task generalization in medical MLLMs.

Significance. The Med-MAT resource is a substantial contribution: it provides a large, publicly released benchmark with explicit factor annotations, and the study spans multiple model families, task types, and includes reproducibility details such as code links and repeated-run statistics in Appendix A.3. If the causal interpretation were established, the work would offer practical guidance for data selection in medical MLLM training and a framework for studying compositional generalization in a high-stakes domain. However, the current evidence is weakened by confounds between the MAT-tag definition and low-level image/format similarity, by a selection procedure that highlights only strong cases in the scaling experiments, and by the absence of error bars in the main tables. These issues do not invalidate the dataset contribution, but they do prevent the paper from supporting its strongest causal claim as written.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Table 3; Appendix A.2] The central Related-versus-Unrelated contrast is confounded with low-level image distribution and task format. Related data share Modality, Anatomical area, or Task, but these MAT tags also correlate with image acquisition style, windowing, question templates, and label vocabularies (e.g., CT-Lung subsets use similar prompts and answer spaces, while Fundus/Microscopy subsets do not). Baseline+ is sampled from the latter, so the observed gain could be ordinary feature/format transfer rather than recombination of abstract factors. Appendix A.2 confirms leakage for finer disease attributes (COVID vs. pneumonia, gain of only 1.34 points over unrelated data in Table 8), showing that the MAT factor boundaries are not clean. The paper needs a control that matches source distribution or task format while varying only the MAT composition, or an analysis showing MAT overlap predicts gain beyond low-level image similarity.
  2. [Section 4.1, Figure 4; Take-aways 5 and 6] The causal claim that disrupting CG reduces generalization rests on only two target subsets (Subset 03 and Subset 28), and the 'w/o Modality/Area/Task' manipulations remove entire groups of datasets, changing the number of datasets, task diversity, and possibly the difficulty of the remaining training mixture while holding only total sample count fixed. The observed drops (e.g., 73 to 62/58/48 for Subset 03) are interpreted as evidence that CG drives multi-task gains, but they are equally consistent with a generic multi-task diversity effect. No error bars are reported for these two target subsets, and the Limitations section itself concedes that some generalization remains after disruption. Additional target subsets, statistical repetition, and an analysis that varies dataset composition independently of MAT overlap are needed to support Take-away 6.
  3. [Section 5.1, Figure 5] The generalization-without-target-data analysis is built on a selection rule that keeps only combinations where Trained already exceeds both Baseline and Baseline+ by at least 10 accuracy points. This explicitly cherry-picks the strongest cases before measuring the scaling curve, so Figure 5 cannot provide unbiased evidence that related data are generally useful in the absence of target data. The authors should report results for all combinations from Table 3, or at least for a pre-registered random sample, alongside the selected subset, so that the reader can assess the strength of Take-away 7.
  4. [Tables 1, 3, and 4; Appendix A.3] The main quantitative evidence is presented without variance estimates. Table 1, Table 3, and Table 4 report single runs, whereas Appendix A.3 provides mean and standard deviation for only eight selected combinations. Given that Table 3 contains multiple failures and that several reported gains are small (e.g., +1 or +2 points), single-run results are insufficient to establish that the observed related-data advantage is robust. I recommend reporting repeated-run mean and standard deviation for all main tables or, at minimum, for the target subsets used in Figure 4 and the scaling experiments.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 5 caption and text] The text in Section 5.1 refers to a purple line for Unrelated data, but the figure legend and caption show green and red lines; the colors should be made consistent.
  2. [Appendix B.2] The prose says 'following the template in Table 8,' but the template is presented as Figure 8; the cross-reference should be corrected.
  3. [Table 1 caption] The caption says 'different models,' but Section 2.2 describes experiments with a single model (LLaVA-v1.5-7B-Vicuna). The caption should be clarified to avoid implying multi-model results in Table 1.
  4. [Table 3] The table would be easier to interpret if it included an explicit 'Direction Type' column for each row, because several rows share the same text strings but differ by which element is fixed; the footnote is easy to miss.
  5. [Section 2.1] The use of ImageWikiQA as a non-medical training set to balance option counts is mentioned but never justified or ablated; a brief explanation of its role would help readers assess potential format confounds.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The CG claim is partly built into the MAT-tag operationalization, though the underlying related-vs-unrelated contrasts are genuine experiments.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1, Table 3; Take-away 2]
    "To ensure that our conclusions are not influenced by the amount of training data, we randomly sampled an equal number of data from the Unrelated subsets, and this configuration is referred to as Baseline+. ... In the Baseline+ setting, we removed all datasets sharing any MAT-Triplet element with the Target data. Consequently, Baseline+ models perform at near-random levels on the test set, indicating they failed to acquire target-relevant knowledge. This suggests that only datasets related through the MAT-Triplet can help the model learn and generalize to new target tasks."

    The 'Related' treatment is defined as sharing at least one manually assigned MAT-Triplet element, and the outcome 'CG Helps' is scored as Trained (Related) beating Baseline+ (Unrelated). The conclusion that MLLMs generalize by recombining MAT elements is therefore read directly off the selection rule that created the comparison. The experiment measures the effect of MAT-tag overlap; it does not measure a compositional recombination mechanism separate from those tags. Any gain from MAT-sharing data is automatically labeled CG, so the existence claim is partly a restatement of the operationalization rather than an independent test of the mechanism.

  2. renaming known result [Section 4.1, Figure 4; Take-away 5]
    "w/o Modality/Area/Task are trained on All Related datasets but omit those sharing the same element as the Target Data, to intentionally disrupt CG. ... Take-away 5: Disrupting CG leads to a significant decline in generalization ability. (Q2)."

    The manipulation called 'disrupting CG' consists of removing from the training set exactly the data that share a MAT-Triplet element with the target, i.e., removing the property used to define 'Related'. Reporting that this deletion lowers target accuracy is equivalent to saying the defined treatment has an effect; it does not independently establish that the underlying mechanism is compositional recombination. The drop is tied to the deletion operation by construction, and the label 'CG' is applied to the removal after the fact.

full rationale

The paper's empirical backbone is real: equal-sized Related versus Unrelated training sets are compared, the scaling experiment varies the amount and composition of training data, and the disruption experiment manipulates MAT overlap. These results could in principle have gone the other way, so the contrasts are not vacuous. However, the central mechanistic claim that compositional generalization is the driver is partly self-definitional. 'Related' is defined by the MAT-tag overlap whose effect is then measured, and 'disrupting CG' is defined as removing that same overlap, so the interpretive language adds a causal mechanism that the experiments do not independently isolate. The design also does not control for low-level image similarity, source overlap, or shared question/answer formats correlated with the MAT tags; Appendix A.2 even reports leakage between fine-grained attributes because images look similar. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found, and the dataset construction is independent, so the circularity is partial rather than total. The paper establishes a useful empirical correlation between MAT-tag relatedness and transfer gains, but the claim that this proves a compositional recombination mechanism is a renaming of the operational definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central claim depends on the MAT-triplet taxonomy being a causally meaningful decomposition, on the base model not having prior medical knowledge, on unrelated data being a clean control, and on the absence of data leakage. These are assumptions introduced by the authors rather than results derived from external benchmarks.

assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Every medical image can be usefully and causally decomposed into Modality, Anatomical area, and Task, and these are the elements the model recombines.
    Defines the experimental variable in Section 2.1; the proof-of-concept in Section 3.1 assumes shared elements are the mechanism.
  • domain assumption LLaVA-v1.5-7B pretraining contains minimal medical image knowledge, so CG gains are not prior exposure.
    Section 2.2 asserts transparency and minimal medical data use, but this is not quantitatively verified.
  • domain assumption Unrelated datasets matched for sample count are an adequate control isolating element overlap.
    Baseline+ in Section 3.1 removes all MAT overlap; the comparison assumes no other confounding transfer effects.
  • domain assumption No target test images leak into related training sets through shared sources or duplicates.
    Data is merged from public challenges under Section 2.1; no deduplication or overlap check is reported.
invented entities (1)
  • MAT-Triplet (Modality, Anatomical area, Task) as the compositional decomposition of medical images
    purpose: Defines relatedness between datasets and operationalizes compositional generalization in all experiments.
    The taxonomy is introduced and validated only within this paper's experimental framework; no external benchmark independently establishes these as the compositional factors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring Compositional Generalization of Multimodal LLMs for Medical Imaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VMOMLD3Y

@misc{pith2026241220070,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring Compositional Generalization of Multimodal LLMs for Medical Imaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VMOMLD3Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20070}
}
read the original abstract

Medical imaging provides essential visual insights for diagnosis, and multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly utilized for its analysis due to their strong generalization capabilities; however, the underlying factors driving this generalization remain unclear. Current research suggests that multi-task training outperforms single-task as different tasks can benefit each other, but they often overlook the internal relationships within these tasks. To analyze this phenomenon, we attempted to employ compositional generalization (CG), which refers to the models' ability to understand novel combinations by recombining learned elements, as a guiding framework. Since medical images can be precisely defined by Modality, Anatomical area, and Task, naturally providing an environment for exploring CG, we assembled 106 medical datasets to create Med-MAT for comprehensive experiments. The experiments confirmed that MLLMs can use CG to understand unseen medical images and identified CG as one of the main drivers of the generalization observed in multi-task training. Additionally, further studies demonstrated that CG effectively supports datasets with limited data and confirmed that MLLMs can achieve CG across classification and detection tasks, underscoring its broader generalization potential. Med-MAT is available at https://github.com/FreedomIntelligence/Med-MAT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20070 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of Compositional Generalization: The model is required to understand unseen images by recombining the fundamental elements it has learned. ities. In this paper, we focus on the latter: gener￾alization of MLLMs in medical imaging. Current research (Mo and Liang, 2024; Ren et al., 2024) has demonstrated that models trained on multiple tasks outperform those trained on a single task as they can leverage potent… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The process of integrating a vast amount of labeled medical image data to create Med-MAT. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example of formatting a raw classification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Accuracy(%) results on the Target dataset for various models. All Related/Unrelated models are trained on all the related or unrelated datasets of the Target Data. w/o Modality/Area/Task are trained on All Related datasets but omit those sharing the same element as the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The accuracy curve reflects the impact of gradually increasing the composition dataset size without using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The accuracy curve shows the impact of increasing the composition dataset volume while incorporating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The accuracy(%) on Classification: Blue represents the untrained model, and green represents the CG-trained model. (details in Appendix A.5) tested on classification task. The final results in Fig￾ure 7 show that all CG combinations demonstrated the model’s successful …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The Template of multiple-choice questions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Illustration of diverse samples with varying numbers of candidate options in the Med-MAT dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Andrea Acevedo, Anna Merino, Santiago Alf \'e rez, \'A ngel Molina, Laura Bold \'u , and Jos \'e Rodellar. 2020. A dataset of microscopic peripheral blood cell images for development of automatic recognition systems. Data in brief, 30:105474

    2020

  2. [2]

    Walid Al-Dhabyani, Mohammed Gomaa, Hussien Khaled, and Aly Fahmy. 2020. Dataset of breast ultrasound images. Data in brief, 28:104863

    2020

  3. [3]

    Tazuddin Ahmed, Joydip Paul, Tasnim Jahan, S

    Shams Nafisa Ali, Md. Tazuddin Ahmed, Joydip Paul, Tasnim Jahan, S. M. Sakeef Sani, Nawshaba Noor, and Taufiq Hasan. 2022. Monkeypox skin lesion detection using deep learning models: A preliminary feasibility study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.03342

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Sharib Ali, Barbara Braden, Dominique Lamarque, Stefano Realdon, Adam Bailey, Renato Cannizzaro, Noha Ghatwary, Jens Rittscher, Christian Daul, and James East. 2020. https://doi.org/10.21227/f8xg-wb80 Endoscopy disease detection and segmentation (edd2020)

    doi:10.21227/f8xg-wb80 2020

  5. [5]

    MD Anouk Stein, Carol Wu, Chris Carr, George Shih, Jamie Dulkowski, kalpathy, Leon Chen, Luciano Prevedello, MD Marc Kohli, Mark McDonald, Peter, Phil Culliton, Safwan Halabi MD, and Tian Xia. 2018. Rsna pneumonia detection challenge. https://kaggle.com/competitions/rsna-pneumonia-detection-challenge. Kaggle

    2018

  6. [6]

    Will Arevalo. 2020. Chexpert v1.0 small. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/willarevalo/chexpert-v10-small. Kaggle

    2020

  7. [7]

    A Asraf and Z Islam. 2021. Covid19, pneumonia and normal chest x-ray pa dataset. mendeley data v1 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    Francisco José Fumero Batista, Tinguaro Diaz-Aleman, Jose Sigut, Silvia Alayon, Rafael Arnay, and Denisse Angel-Pereira. 2020. https://doi.org/10.5566/ias.2346 Rim-one dl: A unified retinal image database for assessing glaucoma using deep learning . Image Analysis & Stereology, 39(3):161--167

    work page doi:10.5566/ias.2346 2020

Show all 128 references
  1. [9]

    Dev Batra. 2024. Fracture detection using x-ray images. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/devbatrax/fracture-detection-using-x-ray-images. Kaggle

    2024

  2. [10]

    Veronica Elisa Castillo Ben \' tez, Ingrid Castro Matto, Julio C \'e sar Mello Rom \'a n, Jos \'e Luis V \'a zquez Noguera, Miguel Garc \' a-Torres, Jordan Ayala, Diego P Pinto-Roa, Pedro E Gardel-Sotomayor, Jacques Facon, and Sebastian Alberto Grillo. 2021. Dataset from fundu...

    2021

  3. [11]

    BenO, jljones, Kumar H, Meg Risdal, MRao, Vadim Sherman, Vipul, Wendy Kan, and Yau Ben-Or. 2017. Intel & mobileodt cervical cancer screening. https://kaggle.com/competitions/intel-mobileodt-cervical-cancer-screening. Kaggle

    2017

  4. [12]

    Jorge Bernal, F Javier S \'a nchez, Gloria Fern \'a ndez-Esparrach, Debora Gil, Cristina Rodr \' guez, and Fernando Vilari \ n o. 2015. Wm-dova maps for accurate polyp highlighting in colonoscopy: Validation vs. saliency maps from physicians. Computerized medical imaging and g...

    2015

  5. [13]

    Bukun. 2019. Breast cancer histopathological database (breakhis). https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/ambarish/breakhis. Kaggle

    2019

  6. [14]

    Grillo, Cynthia Villalba, Jacques Facon, Veronica Elisa Castillo Benítez , Ingrid Castro Matto , and Diego Aquino-Brítez

    Olivia Cardozo, Verena Ojeda, Rodrigo Parra, Julio César Mello-Román, José Luis Vázquez Noguera , Miguel García-Torres, Federico Divina, Sebastian A. Grillo, Cynthia Villalba, Jacques Facon, Veronica Elisa Castillo Benítez , Ingrid Castro Matto , and Diego Aquino-Brítez. 2023....

    2023

  7. [15]

    Ling-Ping Cen, Jie Ji, Jian-Wei Lin, Si-Tong Ju, Hong-Jie Lin, Tai-Ping Li, Yun Wang, Jian-Feng Yang, Yu-Fen Liu, Shaoying Tan, et al. 2021. Automatic detection of 39 fundus diseases and conditions in retinal photographs using deep neural networks. Nature communications, 12(1):4828

    2021

  8. [16]

    Delong Chen, Jianfeng Liu, Wenliang Dai, and Baoyuan Wang. 2024 a . Visual instruction tuning with polite flamingo. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 17745--17753

    2024

  9. [17]

    Jun Chen, Deyao Zhu, Xiaoqian Shen, Xiang Li, Zechun Liu, Pengchuan Zhang, Raghuraman Krishnamoorthi, Vikas Chandra, Yunyang Xiong, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. 2023 a . Minigpt-v2: large language model as a unified interface for vision-language multi-task learning. arXiv preprint a...

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Junying Chen, Ruyi Ouyang, Anningzhe Gao, Shunian Chen, Guiming Hardy Chen, Xidong Wang, Ruifei Zhang, Zhenyang Cai, Ke Ji, Guangjun Yu, et al. 2024 b . Huatuogpt-vision, towards injecting medical visual knowledge into multimodal llms at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19280

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Keqin Chen, Zhao Zhang, Weili Zeng, Richong Zhang, Feng Zhu, and Rui Zhao. 2023 b . Shikra: Unleashing multimodal llm's referential dialogue magic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15195

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Pingjun Chen. 2018. Knee osteoarthritis severity grading dataset. Mendeley Data, 1(10.17632)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Muhammad E. H. Chowdhury, Tawsifur Rahman, Amith Khandakar, Rashid Mazhar, Muhammad Abdul Kadir, Zaid Bin Mahbub, Khandakar Reajul Islam, Muhammad Salman Khan, Atif Iqbal, Nasser Al Emadi, Mamun Bin Ibne Reaz, and Mohammad Tariqul Islam. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.20...

    2020

  14. [22]

    Noel Codella, Veronica Rotemberg, Philipp Tschandl, M Emre Celebi, Stephen Dusza, David Gutman, Brian Helba, Aadi Kalloo, Konstantinos Liopyris, Michael Marchetti, et al. 2019. Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection 2018: A challenge hosted by the international skin im...

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Noel CF Codella, David Gutman, M Emre Celebi, Brian Helba, Michael A Marchetti, Stephen W Dusza, Aadi Kalloo, Konstantinos Liopyris, Nabin Mishra, Harald Kittler, et al. 2018. Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection: A challenge at the 2017 international symposium on bi...

    2018

  16. [24]

    Marc Combalia, Noel CF Codella, Veronica Rotemberg, Brian Helba, Veronica Vilaplana, Ofer Reiter, Cristina Carrera, Alicia Barreiro, Allan C Halpern, Susana Puig, et al. 2019. Bcn20000: Dermoscopic lesions in the wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.02288

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Will Cukierski. 2018. Histopathologic cancer detection. https://kaggle.com/competitions/histopathologic-cancer-detection. Kaggle

    2018

  18. [26]

    Training Data. 2023. Computed tomography of the brain. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/trainingdatapro/computed-tomography-ct-of-the-brain. Kaggle

    2023

  19. [27]

    Coen de Vente, Koenraad A. Vermeer, Nicolas Jaccard, He Wang, Hongyi Sun, Firas Khader, Daniel Truhn, Temirgali Aimyshev, Yerkebulan Zhanibekuly, Tien-Dung Le, Adrian Galdran, Miguel Ángel González Ballester, Gustavo Carneiro, Devika R G, Hrishikesh P S, Densen Puthussery, Hon...

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Danny Driess, Fei Xia, Mehdi SM Sajjadi, Corey Lynch, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Brian Ichter, Ayzaan Wahid, Jonathan Tompson, Quan Vuong, Tianhe Yu, et al. 2023. Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03378

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Fernando Feltrin. 2022. Brain tumor mri images 17 classes. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/fernando2rad/brain-tumor-mri-images-17-classes. Kaggle

    2022

  22. [30]

    Mohammad Fraiwan, Ziad Audat, Luay Fraiwan, and Tarek Manasreh. 2022. Using deep transfer learning to detect scoliosis and spondylolisthesis from x-ray images. Plos one, 17(5):e0267851

    2022

  23. [31]

    Huazhu Fu, Fei Li, José Ignacio Orlando, Hrvoje Bogunović, Xu Sun, Jingan Liao, Yanwu Xu, Shaochong Zhang, and Xiulan Zhang. 2019. https://doi.org/10.21227/55pk-8z03 Palm: Pathologic myopia challenge

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Ioannis Giotis, Nynke Molders, Sander Land, Michael Biehl, Marcel F Jonkman, and Nicolai Petkov. 2015. Med-node: A computer-assisted melanoma diagnosis system using non-dermoscopic images. Expert systems with applications, 42(19):6578--6585

    2015

  25. [33]

    Haifan Gong, Guanqi Chen, Ranran Wang, Xiang Xie, Mingzhi Mao, Yizhou Yu, Fei Chen, and Guanbin Li. 2021. Multi-task learning for thyroid nodule segmentation with thyroid region prior. In 2021 IEEE 18th international symposium on biomedical imaging (ISBI), pages 257--261. IEEE

    2021

  26. [34]

    Haifan Gong, Jiaxin Chen, Guanqi Chen, Haofeng Li, Fei Chen, and Guanbin Li. 2022. Thyroid region prior guided attention for ultrasound segmentation of thyroid nodules. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 106389:1--12

    2022

  27. [35]

    Shivanand Gornale and Pooja Patravali. 2020. https://doi.org/10.17632/t9ndx37v5h.1 Digital knee x-ray images

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    Matthew Groh, Caleb Harris, Luis Soenksen, Felix Lau, Rachel Han, Aerin Kim, Arash Koochek, and Omar Badri. 2021. Evaluating deep neural networks trained on clinical images in dermatology with the fitzpatrick 17k dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer V...

    2021

  29. [37]

    David Gutman, Noel CF Codella, Emre Celebi, Brian Helba, Michael Marchetti, Nabin Mishra, and Allan Halpern. 2016. Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection: A challenge at the international symposium on biomedical imaging (isbi) 2016, hosted by the international skin ima...

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Saba Hesaraki. 2022. Breast ultrasound images dataset (busi). https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/sabahesaraki/breast-ultrasound-images-dataset. Kaggle

    2022

  31. [39]

    Md Nazmul Islam, Mehedi Hasan, Md Kabir Hossain, Md Golam Rabiul Alam, Md Zia Uddin, and Ahmet Soylu. 2022 a . Vision transformer and explainable transfer learning models for auto detection of kidney cyst, stone and tumor from ct-radiography. Scientific Reports, 12(1):1--14

    2022

  32. [40]

    Towhidul Islam, Mohammad Arafat Hussain, Forhad Uddin Hasan Chowdhury, and B M Riazul Islam. 2022 b . https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.01.502199 A web-scrapped skin image database of monkeypox, chickenpox, smallpox, cowpox, and measles . bioRxiv 2022.08.01.502199

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    Stefan Jaeger, Sema Candemir, Sameer Antani, Y \` -Xi \'a ng J W \'a ng, Pu-Xuan Lu, and George Thoma. 2014. Two public chest x-ray datasets for computer-aided screening of pulmonary diseases. Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 4(6):475

    2014

  34. [42]

    Debesh Jha, Pia H Smedsrud, Michael A Riegler, P l Halvorsen, Thomas de Lange, Dag Johansen, and H vard D Johansen. 2020. Kvasir-seg: A segmented polyp dataset. In MultiMedia Modeling: 26th International Conference, MMM 2020, Daejeon, South Korea, January 5--8, 2020, Proceedin...

    2020

  35. [43]

    Kai Jin, Xingru Huang, Jingxing Zhou, Yunxiang Li, Yan Yan, Yibao Sun, Qianni Zhang, Yaqi Wang, and Juan Ye. 2022. Fives: A fundus image dataset for artificial intelligence based vessel segmentation. Scientific data, 9(1):475

    2022

  36. [44]

    JR2NGB. 2019. Cataract dataset. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/jr2ngb/cataractdataset. Kaggle

    2019

  37. [45]

    Nur Karaca. 2022. Nlm montgomery cxr set. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/nurkaraca/nlm-montgomerycxrset. Kaggle

    2022

  38. [46]

    Karthik, Maggie, and Sohier Dane. 2019. Aptos 2019 blindness detection. https://kaggle.com/competitions/aptos2019-blindness-detection. Kaggle

    2019

  39. [47]

    Andrey Katanskiy. 2019. Skin cancer isic. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/nodoubttome/skin-cancer9-classesisic. Kaggle

    2019

  40. [48]

    Jakob Nikolas Kather, Niels Halama, and Alexander Marx. 2018. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1214456 100,000 histological images of human colorectal cancer and healthy tissue

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    Daniel Kermany. 2018. Labeled optical coherence tomography (oct) and chest x-ray images for classification. Mendeley data

    2018

  42. [50]

    Felipe Campos Kitamura. 2018. https://doi.org/10.34740/KAGGLE/DSV/152137 Head ct - hemorrhage

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    Jorge F Lazo, Benoit Rosa, Michele Catellani, Matteo Fontana, Francesco A Mistretta, Gennaro Musi, Ottavio de Cobelli, Michel de Mathelin, and Elena De Momi. 2023. Semi-supervised bladder tissue classification in multi-domain endoscopic images. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical ...

    2023

  44. [52]

    Trang Le, Casper F Winsnes, Ulrika Axelsson, Hao Xu, Jayasankar Mohanakrishnan Kaimal, Diana Mahdessian, Shubin Dai, Ilya S Makarov, Vladislav Ostankovich, Yang Xu, et al. 2022. Analysis of the human protein atlas weakly supervised single-cell classification competition. Natur...

    2022

  45. [53]

    Phuc H Le-Khac, Graham Healy, and Alan F Smeaton. 2020. Contrastive representation learning: A framework and review. Ieee Access, 8:193907--193934

    2020

  46. [54]

    Rebecca Sawyer Lee, Francisco Gimenez, Assaf Hoogi, Kanae Kawai Miyake, Mia Gorovoy, and Daniel L Rubin. 2017. A curated mammography data set for use in computer-aided detection and diagnosis research. Scientific data, 4(1):1--9

    2017

  47. [55]

    Sangjune L Lee, Poonam Yadav, Yin Li, Jason J Meudt, Jessica Strang, Dustin Hebel, Alyx Alfson, Stephanie J Olson, Tera R Kruser, Jennifer B Smilowitz, et al. 2024. Dataset for gastrointestinal tract segmentation on serial mris for abdominal tumor radiotherapy. Data in Brief, ...

    2024

  48. [56]

    Chunyuan Li, Cliff Wong, Sheng Zhang, Naoto Usuyama, Haotian Liu, Jianwei Yang, Tristan Naumann, Hoifung Poon, and Jianfeng Gao. 2024. Llava-med: Training a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  49. [57]

    Yuanpeng Li, Liang Zhao, Jianyu Wang, and Joel Hestness. 2019. Compositional generalization for primitive substitutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.02612

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Yuexiang Li, Nanjun He, and Yawen Huang. 2022. Single domain generalization via spontaneous amplitude spectrum diversification. In MICCAI Workshop on Resource-Efficient Medical Image Analysis, pages 32--41. Springer

    2022

  51. [59]

    Jie Lian, Jingyu Liu, Shu Zhang, Kai Gao, Xiaoqing Liu, Dingwen Zhang, and Yizhou Yu. 2021. A structure-aware relation network for thoracic diseases detection and segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 40(8):2042--2052

    2021

  52. [60]

    Xiao Liang. 2021. Adam dataset. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/xiaoliang2121/adamdataset. Kaggle

    2021

  53. [61]

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023. Visual instruction tuning

    2023

  54. [62]

    Jacob A Macdonald, Zhe Zhu, Brandon Konkel, and Mazurowski. 2020. Siim-acr pneumothorax segmentation. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7774566. Zenodo

    2020 doi

  55. [63]

    K Scott Mader. 2017. Mias mammography. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/kmader/mias-mammography. Kaggle

    2017

  56. [64]

    Salman Maqbool, Aqsa Riaz, Hasan Sajid, and Osman Hasan. 2020. m2caiseg: Semantic segmentation of laparoscopic images using convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.10134

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Christian Matek, Sebastian Krappe, Christian M \"u nzenmayer, Torsten Haferlach, and Carsten Marr. 2021. An expert-annotated dataset of bone marrow cytology in hematologic malignancies. The Cancer Imaging Archive

    2021

  58. [66]

    Sarah Matta, Mathieu Lamard, Philippe Zhang, Alexandre Le Guilcher, Laurent Borderie, B \'e atrice Cochener, and Gwenol \'e Quellec. 2024. A systematic review of generalization research in medical image classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12167

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Teresa Mendonca, M Celebi, T Mendonca, and J Marques. 2015. Ph2: A public database for the analysis of dermoscopic images. Dermoscopy image analysis

    2015

  60. [68]

    Meta AI . 2024. Llama 3.2: Revolutionizing edge ai and vision with open, customizable models. https://ai.meta.com/blog/llama-3-2-connect-2024-vision-edge\\-mobile-devices/

    2024

  61. [69]

    Shentong Mo and Paul Pu Liang. 2024. Multimed: Massively multimodal and multitask medical understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12682

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Paul Mooney. 2017. Blood cell images. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/paultimothymooney/blood-cells. Kaggle

    2017

  63. [71]

    Michael Moor, Qian Huang, Shirley Wu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yash Dalmia, Jure Leskovec, Cyril Zakka, Eduardo Pontes Reis, and Pranav Rajpurkar. 2023. Med-flamingo: a multimodal medical few-shot learner. In Machine Learning for Health (ML4H), pages 353--367. PMLR

    2023

  64. [72]

    Loris Nanni, Michelangelo Paci, Florentino Luciano Caetano dos Santos, Heli Skottman, Kati Juuti-Uusitalo, and Jari Hyttinen. 2016. Texture descriptors ensembles enable image-based classification of maturation of human stem cell-derived retinal pigmented epithelium. PLoS One, ...

    2016

  65. [73]

    Hieu T Nguyen, Ha Q Nguyen, Hieu H Pham, Khanh Lam, Linh T Le, Minh Dao, and Van Vu. 2023. Vindr-mammo: A large-scale benchmark dataset for computer-aided diagnosis in full-field digital mammography. Scientific Data, 10(1):277

    2023

  66. [74]

    Masoud Nickparvar. 2021 a . Brain tumor mri dataset. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/masoudnickparvar/brain-tumor-mri-dataset. Kaggle

    2021

  67. [75]

    Msoud Nickparvar. 2021 b . https://doi.org/10.34740/KAGGLE/DSV/2645886 Brain tumor mri dataset

    2021

  68. [77]

    Nikita Orlov, Wayne Chen, David Eckley, Tomasz Macura, Lior Shamir, Elaine Jaffe, and Ilya Goldberg. 2010 b . https://doi.org/10.1109/TITB.2010.2050695 Automatic classification of lymphoma images with transform-based global features . IEEE transactions on information technolog...

    2010

  69. [78]

    Silvia Ovreiu, Elena-Anca Paraschiv, and Elena Ovreiu. 2021. Deep learning & digital fundus images: Glaucoma detection using densenet. In 2021 13th international conference on electronics, computers and artificial intelligence (ECAI), pages 1--4. IEEE

    2021

  70. [79]

    Andre GC Pacheco, Gustavo R Lima, Amanda S Salomao, Breno Krohling, Igor P Biral, Gabriel G de Angelo, F \'a bio CR Alves Jr, Jos \'e GM Esgario, Alana C Simora, Pedro BC Castro, et al. 2020. Pad-ufes-20: A skin lesion dataset composed of patient data and clinical images colle...

    2020

  71. [80]

    Sachin Panchal, Ankita Naik, Manesh Kokare, Samiksha Pachade, Rushikesh Naigaonkar, Prerana Phadnis, and Archana Bhange. 2023. Retinal fundus multi-disease image dataset (rfmid) 2.0: a dataset of frequently and rarely identified diseases. Data, 8(2):29

    2023

  72. [81]

    Zhiliang Peng, Wenhui Wang, Li Dong, Yaru Hao, Shaohan Huang, Shuming Ma, and Furu Wei. 2023. Kosmos-2: Grounding multimodal large language models to the world. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14824

    2023 arXiv

  73. [82]

    H Hieu Pham, T Thanh Tran, and Ha Quy Nguyen. 2022. Vindr-pcxr: An open, large-scale pediatric chest x-ray dataset for interpretation of common thoracic diseases. PhysioNet (version 1.0. 0), 10:2

    2022

  74. [83]

    Hieu Huy Pham, H Nguyen Trung, and Ha Quy Nguyen. 2021. Vindr-spinexr: A large annotated medical image dataset for spinal lesions detection and classification from radiographs. PhysioNet

    2021

  75. [85]

    Konstantin Pogorelov, Kristin Ranheim Randel, Carsten Griwodz, Sigrun Losada Eskeland, Thomas de Lange, Dag Johansen, Concetto Spampinato, Duc-Tien Dang-Nguyen, Mathias Lux, Peter Thelin Schmidt, Michael Riegler, and P l Halvorsen. 2017 b . https://doi.org/10.1145/3083187.3083...

    2017

  76. [86]

    Praveen. 2019. Coronahack chest x-ray dataset. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/praveengovi/coronahack-chest-xraydataset. Kaggle

    2019

  77. [87]

    Pavle Prentasic, Sven Loncaric, Zoran Vatavuk, Goran Bencic, Marko Subasic, Tomislav Petković, Lana Dujmovic, Maja Malenica Ravlic, Nikolina Budimlija, and Rašeljka Tadić. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISPA.2013.6703830 Diabetic retinopathy image database(dridb): A new databas...

    2013

  78. [88]

    Xianbiao Qi, Guoying Zhao, Jie Chen, and Matti Pietik \"a inen. 2016. Hep-2 cell classification: The role of gaussian scale space theory as a pre-processing approach. Pattern Recognition Letters, 82:36--43

    2016

  79. [89]

    Raddar. 2019. Chest x-rays (indiana university). https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/raddar/chest-xrays-indiana-university?select=indiana_reports.csv. Kaggle

    2019

  80. [90]

    Tawsifur Rahman, Amith Khandakar, Muhammad Abdul Kadir, Khandaker Rejaul Islam, Khandakar F Islam, Rashid Mazhar, Tahir Hamid, Mohammad Tariqul Islam, Saad Kashem, Zaid Bin Mahbub, et al. 2020. Reliable tuberculosis detection using chest x-ray with deep learning, segmentation ...

    2020

  81. [91]

    MOHD ZAID RASHID. 2024. Oral cancer dataset. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/zaidpy/oral-cancer-dataset. Kaggle

    2024

  82. [92]

    Sucheng Ren, Xiaoke Huang, Xianhang Li, Junfei Xiao, Jieru Mei, Zeyu Wang, Alan Yuille, and Yuyin Zhou. 2024. Medical vision generalist: Unifying medical imaging tasks in context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05565

    2024 arXiv

  83. [93]

    Manuel Alejandro Rodr \' guez, Hasan AlMarzouqi, and Panos Liatsis. 2022. Multi-label retinal disease classification using transformers. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics

    2022

  84. [94]

    Veronica Rotemberg, Nicholas Kurtansky, Brigid Betz-Stablein, Liam Caffery, Emmanouil Chousakos, Noel Codella, Marc Combalia, Stephen Dusza, Pascale Guitera, David Gutman, et al. 2021. A patient-centric dataset of images and metadata for identifying melanomas using clinical co...

    2021

  85. [95]

    Khaled Saab, Tao Tu, Wei-Hung Weng, Ryutaro Tanno, David Stutz, Ellery Wulczyn, Fan Zhang, Tim Strother, Chunjong Park, Elahe Vedadi, et al. 2024. Capabilities of gemini models in medicine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18416

    2024 arXiv

  86. [96]

    Salman Sajid. 2024. Oral diseases. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/salmansajid05/oral-diseases/data. Kaggle

    2024

  87. [97]

    F Shaker. 2018. Human sperm head morphology dataset (hushem). Mendeley Data, 3

    2018

  88. [98]

    Julio Silva-Rodr \' guez, Adri \'a n Colomer, Mar \' a A Sales, Rafael Molina, and Valery Naranjo. 2020. Going deeper through the gleason scoring scale: An automatic end-to-end system for histology prostate grading and cribriform pattern detection. Computer Methods and Program...

    2020

  89. [99]

    Eduardo Soares, Plamen Angelov, Sarah Biaso, Michele Higa Froes, and Daniel Kanda Abe. 2020. Sars-cov-2 ct-scan dataset:a large dataset of real patients ct scans for sars-cov-2 identification. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

    2020

  90. [100]

    Malliga Subramanian, Kogilavani Shanmugavadivel, Obuli Sai Naren, K Premkumar, and K Rankish. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCI54379.2022.9740985 Classification of retinal oct images using deep learning . In 2022 International Conference on Computer Communication and Informa...

    2022

  91. [101]

    Summers and Ronald. 2020. Chestxray nihcc. https://nihcc.app.box.com/v/ChestXray-NIHCC/folder/36938765345. NIH

    2020

  92. [102]

    SunneYi. 2021. https://tianchi.aliyun.com/dataset/93929 Chest CT-Scan images Dataset

    2021

  93. [103]

    Siham Tabik, Anabel G \'o mez-R \' os, Jos \'e Luis Mart \' n-Rodr \' guez, Iv \'a n Sevillano-Garc \' a, Manuel Rey-Area, David Charte, Emilio Guirado, Juan-Luis Su \'a rez, Juli \'a n Luengo, MA Valero-Gonz \'a lez, et al. 2020. Covidgr dataset and covid-sdnet methodology fo...

    2020

  94. [104]

    Yihong Tang, Ao Qu, Zhaokai Wang, Dingyi Zhuang, Zhaofeng Wu, Wei Ma, Shenhao Wang, Yunhan Zheng, Zhan Zhao, and Jinhua Zhao. 2024. Sparkle: Mastering basic spatial capabilities in vision language models elicits generalization to composite spatial reasoning. arXiv preprint arX...

    2024

  95. [105]

    Tao Tu, Shekoofeh Azizi, Danny Driess, Mike Schaekermann, Mohamed Amin, Pi-Chuan Chang, Andrew Carroll, Charles Lau, Ryutaro Tanno, Ira Ktena, et al. 2024. Towards generalist biomedical ai. NEJM AI, 1(3):AIoa2300138

    2024

  96. [106]

    Peking University. 2019. Odir-2019 dataset. https://odir2019.grand-challenge.org/introduction/. Grand Challenge

    2019

  97. [107]

    Preet Viradiya. 2020. Brain tumor dataset. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/preetviradiya/brain-tumor-dataset. Kaggle

    2020

  98. [108]

    Haiyang Wang, Hao Tang, Li Jiang, Shaoshuai Shi, Muhammad Ferjad Naeem, Hongsheng Li, Bernt Schiele, and Liwei Wang. 2025. Git: Towards generalist vision transformer through universal language interface. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 55--73. Springer

    2025

  99. [109]

    Linda Wang, Zhong Qiu Lin, and Alexander Wong. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76550-z Covid-net: a tailored deep convolutional neural network design for detection of covid-19 cases from chest x-ray images . Scientific Reports, 10(1):19549

    2020 doi

  100. [111]

    Peng Wang, Shuai Bai, Sinan Tan, Shijie Wang, Zhihao Fan, Jinze Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, Yang Fan, Kai Dang, Mengfei Du, Xuancheng Ren, Rui Men, Dayiheng Liu, Chang Zhou, Jingren Zhou, and Junyang Lin. 2024 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.12191 Qwen...

    2024 arXiv

  101. [112]

    Wenhai Wang, Zhe Chen, Xiaokang Chen, Jiannan Wu, Xizhou Zhu, Gang Zeng, Ping Luo, Tong Lu, Jie Zhou, Yu Qiao, et al. 2024 c . Visionllm: Large language model is also an open-ended decoder for vision-centric tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  102. [113]

    Xiaosong Wang, Yifan Peng, Le Lu, Zhiyong Lu, Mohammadhadi Bagheri, and Ronald M Summers. 2017. Chestx-ray8: Hospital-scale chest x-ray database and benchmarks on weakly-supervised classification and localization of common thorax diseases. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference...

    2017

  103. [114]

    wjXiaochuangw. 2019. https://tianchi.aliyun.com/dataset/93666 Covid-19-ct scan images

    2019

  104. [115]

    Zhenlin Xu, Marc Niethammer, and Colin A Raffel. 2022. Compositional generalization in unsupervised compositional representation learning: A study on disentanglement and emergent language. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:25074--25087

    2022

  105. [116]

    Anna Zawacki, Carol Wu, George Shih, Julia Elliott, Mikhail Fomitchev, Mohannad Hussain, Paras Lakhani, Phil Culliton, and Shunxing Bao. 2019. Siim-acr pneumothorax segmentation. https://kaggle.com/competitions/siim-acr-pneumothorax-segmentation. Kaggle

    2019

  106. [117]

    Yaya Zha. 2021. Rus-chn. https://aistudio.baidu.com/datasetdetail/69582/0. AI Studio

    2021

  107. [118]

    Ao Zhang, Liming Zhao, Chen-Wei Xie, Yun Zheng, Wei Ji, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2023 a . Next-chat: An lmm for chat, detection and segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04498

    2023 arXiv

  108. [119]

    Edward Zhang and Sauman Das. 2022. Glaucoma detection. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/sshikamaru/glaucoma-detection. Kaggle

    2022

  109. [120]

    Ruipeng Zhang, Qinwei Xu, Chaoqin Huang, Ya Zhang, and Yanfeng Wang. 2022. Semi-supervised domain generalization for medical image analysis. In 2022 IEEE 19th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pages 1--5. IEEE

    2022

  110. [121]

    Shilong Zhang, Peize Sun, Shoufa Chen, Min Xiao, Wenqi Shao, Wenwei Zhang, Yu Liu, Kai Chen, and Ping Luo. 2023 b . Gpt4roi: Instruction tuning large language model on region-of-interest. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03601

    2023 arXiv

  111. [122]

    Tao Zhang, Xiangtai Li, Hao Fei, Haobo Yuan, Shengqiong Wu, Shunping Ji, Change Loy Chen, and Shuicheng Yan. 2024 a . Omg-llava: Bridging image-level, object-level, pixel-level reasoning and understanding. In NeurIPS

    2024

  112. [123]

    Xiaoman Zhang, Chaoyi Wu, Ziheng Zhao, Weixiong Lin, Ya Zhang, Yanfeng Wang, and Weidi Xie. 2023 c . Pmc-vqa: Visual instruction tuning for medical visual question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10415

    2023 arXiv

  113. [124]

    Yuhui Zhang, Alyssa Unell, Xiaohan Wang, Dhruba Ghosh, Yuchang Su, Ludwig Schmidt, and Serena Yeung-Levy. 2024 b . Why are visually-grounded language models bad at image classification? arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18415

    2024 arXiv

  114. [125]

    Jinyu Zhao, Yichen Zhang, Xuehai He, and Pengtao Xie. 2020. Covid-ct-dataset: a ct scan dataset about covid-19. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.13865

    2020 arXiv

  115. [126]

    Chuang Zhu, Wenkai Chen, Ting Peng, Ying Wang, and Mulan Jin. 2021 a . Hard sample aware noise robust learning for histopathology image classification. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 41(4):881--894

    2021

  116. [127]

    Chuang Zhu, Wenkai Chen, Ting Peng, Ying Wang, and Mulan Jin. 2021 b . Hard sample aware noise robust learning for histopathology image classification. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 41(4):881--894

    2021

  117. [128]

    Xile Zhu. 2022. Lc25000. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/xilezhu/lc25000. Kaggle

    2022

  118. [129]

    Абеуов Нурмұхаммед Бақтыбекұлы. 2021. Augemnted ocular diseases. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/nurmukhammed7/augemnted-ocular-diseases. Kaggle

    2021

  119. [130]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  120. [131]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.