Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) deliver exceptional results for computer vision, including medical image analysis. With the growing number of available architectures, picking one over another is far from obvious. Existing art suggests that, when performing transfer learning, the performance of CNN architectures on ImageNet correlates strongly with their performance on target tasks. We evaluate that claim for melanoma classification, over 9 CNNs architectures, in 5 sets of splits created on the ISIC Challenge 2017 dataset, and 3 repeated measures, resulting in 135 models. The correlations we found were, to begin with, much smaller than those reported by existing art, and disappeared altogether when we considered only the top-performing networks: uncontrolled nuisances (i.e., splits and randomness) overcome any of the analyzed factors. Whenever possible, the best approach for melanoma classification is still to create ensembles of multiple models. We compared two choices for selecting which models to ensemble: picking them at random (among a pool of high-quality ones) vs. using the validation set to determine which ones to pick first. For small ensembles, we found a slight advantage on the second approach but found that random choice was also competitive. Although our aim in this paper was not to maximize performance, we easily reached AUCs comparable to the first place on the ISIC Challenge 2017.
In this work, we focus on that issue, by applying the design of Kornblith al @cite_38 to the task of melanoma classification. We evaluate the performance of 9 networks (listed in Table ) pre-trained on ImageNet, and fine-tuned for melanoma classification, on the dataset of the ISIC 2017 challenge.
@cite_38
2804935296
Transfer learning is a cornerstone of computer vision, yet little work has been done to evaluate the relationship between architecture and transfer. An implicit hypothesis in modern computer vision research is that models that perform better on ImageNet necessarily perform better on other vision tasks. However, this hypothesis has never been systematically tested. Here, we compare the performance of 16 classification networks on 12 image classification datasets. We find that, when networks are used as fixed feature extractors or fine-tuned, there is a strong correlation between ImageNet accuracy and transfer accuracy ( @math and @math , respectively). In the former setting, we find that this relationship is very sensitive to the way in which networks are trained on ImageNet; many common forms of regularization slightly improve ImageNet accuracy but yield penultimate layer features that are much worse for transfer learning. Additionally, we find that, on two small fine-grained image classification datasets, pretraining on ImageNet provides minimal benefits, indicating the learned features from ImageNet do not transfer well to fine-grained tasks. Together, our results show that ImageNet architectures generalize well across datasets, but ImageNet features are less general than previously suggested.