Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Exploring AI-based System Design for Pixel-level Protected Health Information Detection in Medical Images

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

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

Pith's one-line read The best pixel-level PHI detector splits the job: YOLOv11 for text, EasyOCR for reading, GPT-4o for judgment.

desk verdict A solid, practical comparison of PHI-detection pipeline architectures with clear accuracy-cost tradeoffs, but instance-level matching is underspecified and the external-validity base is synthetic. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09552 v4 pith:2FJD6JQH submitted 2025-01-16 cs.CV

Tuan Truong , Ivo M. Baltruschat , Mark Klemens , Grit Werner , Matthias Lenga This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords protectedhealthinformationdetectionmedicalimagede-identificationopticalcharacterrecognitionlargelanguagemodelsYOLOv11GPT-4opixel-levelPHItextlocalization
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

This paper tries to establish that the most reliable way to detect patient-identifying text burned into medical images is to split the job into three specialized stages: a fine-tuned object detector (YOLOv11) finds text regions, an off-the-shelf OCR engine (EasyOCR) reads them, and a large language model (GPT-4o) classifies which strings are protected health information. The authors benchmark this configuration against four alternatives, including letting EasyOCR do detection, letting GPT-4o read image crops, and letting GPT-4o handle the entire task end-to-end. They find the dedicated-module setup achieves near-perfect case-level performance on their synthetic test set and the best balance of precision, recall, latency, and token cost. A sympathetic reader would care because this gives a practical, low-cost recipe for building pixel-level PHI detection today, and because it clarifies when multimodal LLMs are ready to replace traditional OCR pipelines.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the three-module decomposition of PHI detection—text localization, text extraction, text analysis—and the assignment of a dedicated model to each stage. The load-bearing identity is the specific orchestration: YOLOv11's single-shot detector supplies tight bounding boxes; EasyOCR converts those crops to strings; GPT-4o, constrained by a structured-output schema and temperature zero, classifies each string against a prompt-defined PHI ontology. The paper's decision rule is that later modules can compensate for earlier errors: a robust language model absorbs minor OCR mistakes, but no amount of language understanding can recover text that was never localized.

What would settle it

Run the same four setups on a corpus of real clinical images containing genuine burned-in PHI from diverse institutions, scanners, fonts, and overlay artifacts, and compare instance-level recall and precision against the MIDI results. If any setup other than Setup 1 tops the ranking, or if Setup 1's instance-level recall falls far below the 0.9781 reported on MIDI while another setup holds up, the optimality claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a modular pipeline—YOLOv11 fine-tuned for text localization, EasyOCR for text extraction, and GPT-4o for text analysis—is the optimal configuration for pixel-level PHI detection. On the RadPHI-test benchmark it reaches case-level precision 1.0000 and recall 0.9995, and on the realistic MIDI hold-out set, after a one-line prompt adaptation that excludes study-related identifiers from the PHI definition, it reaches instance-level precision 0.9721 and recall 0.9781. The authors also show that using GPT-4o for text extraction (Setup 3) barely improves pipeline accuracy over EasyOCR while roughly doubling latency and tripling prompt tokens, and that using GPT-4o end-to-end is feasible but produces more hallucinations and no bounding box coordinates, making it unsuitable for redaction. The finding matters because it identifies which components actually carry the performance and where LLM flexibility provides the most value.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that Setup 1 is optimal rests on the assumption that synthetic imprints overlaid on public radiology images faithfully represent real burned-in clinical PHI, since the ranking of setups is measured only on such synthetic data and the paper states it never tested genuine patient data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A modular, mostly off-the-shelf pipeline can already deliver near-perfect case-level PHI detection on synthetic radiology benchmarks, suggesting immediate practical deployment for screening.
  • Because the LLM tolerates minor OCR errors, teams can use lightweight OCR instead of paying for high-accuracy commercial engines without sacrificing detection quality.
  • PHI policy changes—for example, deciding that study or image identifiers are not PHI—can be implemented by editing a natural-language prompt, not by re-training or re-writing rules.
  • End-to-end multimodal LLMs are not yet a drop-in replacement for dedicated vision models, since they lack coordinate outputs and exhibit higher hallucination and pipeline-error rates.
  • The chosen setup generalizes to unseen modalities (PET, mammography, ultrasound) without retraining the localization model, indicating the architecture is modality-agnostic.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the modular result holds beyond radiology, the same YOLO+OCR+LLM skeleton could detect PHI in clinical documents, pathology images, or scanned forms, with only the prompt ontology changed.
  • The near-zero false-negative rate at case level suggests the pipeline could serve as a high-recall pre-filter in de-identification workflows, with flagged images sent to human review and unflagged images released automatically.
  • The token-cost gap between Setup 1 and Setup 3 implies that as small on-premise LLMs improve, the analysis module could be swapped for a local model, preserving accuracy while removing the privacy cost of sending text to a hosted API.
  • A direct testable extension would be evaluating Setup 1 on non-English imprints; the paper's observed implicit spelling correction is English-centric and may not transfer to other scripts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes and evaluates a modular pipeline for pixel-level PHI detection in medical images, consisting of text localization, text extraction, and text analysis. The authors compare four configurations built from YOLOv11, EasyOCR, and GPT-4o, plus a Presidio baseline, on two synthetic datasets: RadPHI-test (1,000 images) and MIDI (200 images). They report case-level and (for some setups) instance-level precision/recall, latency, and token costs, and conclude that the setup with dedicated models for each module (YOLOv11 for localization, EasyOCR for extraction, GPT-4o for analysis) is optimal. They also demonstrate that a prompt adaptation improves performance on the MIDI dataset.

Significance. The paper addresses an important and practical problem: automated PHI detection in medical images. The modular analysis is useful for practitioners choosing among OCR and LLM components. Strengths include an extensive evaluation with five runs at temperature zero, the use of an external hold-out (MIDI) distinct from the development set, a comparison to a deterministic baseline, and statistical testing for prompt changes on MIDI. The construction of two benchmark datasets with detailed annotations is a potentially valuable community resource, though the datasets are not currently publicly released. If the conclusions hold across real-world data, the recommendation of a dedicated localization model (YOLOv11) with a lightweight OCR (EasyOCR) and LLM-based analysis is practically actionable. The main open risk is the external validity of the benchmarks, which are entirely synthetic.

major comments (5)
  1. [§6 (Limitations); §2.4–2.5] The core claim that Setup 1 is the optimal configuration is supported only by evaluations on synthetic overlay data (RadPHI-test, Section 2.4, and MIDI, Section 2.5). The authors explicitly acknowledge in Section 6 that "our evaluation does not include testing our proposed approaches on real-world data containing PHI." Since the ranking between Setup 1 and Setup 3 is close (e.g., case-level recall 0.9923 vs 0.9995 in Tables A1 and A3; case-level precision for patient name 0.9778 vs 1.0000), the choice of Setup 1 is driven largely by latency and token costs as measured on this synthetic distribution. Real burned-in imprints often have different fonts, contrast, warping, and partial occlusion; any of these could reverse the relative merits of EasyOCR versus GPT-4o as the extractor. Please either provide evidence (e.g., a small real-data pilot) that the synthetic distribution is representative, or explicitly restrict the conclusion to "optimal among the evaluated synthetic benchmarks."
  2. [§4; Table 3] Instance-level evaluation is introduced in Section 4 and Table 3, and instance-level precision/recall are reported in Tables 5 and 7, but the manuscript never defines the matching protocol between predicted bounding boxes and ground-truth boxes. Is an IoU threshold used (and what value)? How are duplicate predictions or one-to-many matches handled? Without this information the instance-level numbers are not reproducible, and the comparison between Setups 1 and 3 at instance level is not fully interpretable. Please specify the matching algorithm precisely.
  3. [§2.5] The MIDI dataset is described as containing both DICOM tag overlays generated by the authors and burn-ins from the original MIDI-B challenge organizers, but it is not stated whether the instance-level ground truth annotations include the organizers' burn-ins or only the authors' overlays. If the latter, then the MIDI evaluation does not actually test on the original MIDI-B burn-ins, which would substantially weaken the claim that MIDI is a "realistic hold-out dataset." Please clarify the annotation scope and, if the burn-ins are included, describe how their ground truth was obtained.
  4. [§6 (Discussion, Text extraction)] The Discussion states that "GPT-4o outperforms EasyOCR by having lower word-level and character-level errors," but no OCR-only evaluation is presented anywhere in the paper. This claim is load-bearing for the recommendation to use EasyOCR despite its lower OCR accuracy, under the argument that the downstream LLM compensates. Please add the OCR-only evaluation (e.g., character/word error rates on the crop sets) or remove/qualify the claim.
  5. [§2.4 vs Table 4] There is a discrepancy between the stated number of PHI-containing images in RadPHI-test: Section 2.4 says "850 images (85%) contain at least one PHI imprint," while Table 4 reports 779 images with PHI presence. This affects the denominator of the reported recall values. Please correct the text or the table and verify all derived statistics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Tables 4 and 5] The identity of "Worst Setup" and "Best Setup" is only given by color-coding in the table captions, which may not be discernible in grayscale print. Please include the setup numbers explicitly (e.g., "Setup 1 (YOLOv11 + EasyOCR + GPT-4o)").
  2. [Tables 4 and 5 captions] The tool name is misspelled as "Presdio" in the captions; it should be "Presidio".
  3. [§2.4] The text states that RadPHI-test comprises "1,000 images distributed equally across four modalities," but the four modalities are not enumerated in the text; please name them (CT, bone scan, X-ray, MRI, as implied by Figure 3).
  4. [Data availability statement] The datasets are said to be "available upon request"; for benchmarking purposes, a public release (e.g., via a repository) would greatly increase the impact and reproducibility of the study.
  5. [Figure 8 caption] The caption says "out-of-the-box EasyOCR tries to fit bounding boxes that cover the entire text space," but the example shows two separate boxes; please clarify the intended point.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation reduces to its inputs; one post-hoc prompt adaptation on the MIDI hold-out prevents a fully clean bill of health.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.2 (MIDI results), Table 7]
    "To correct this, we refine the prompt by explicitly stating that study or image-related identifiers should not be categorized as PHI. The resulting enhancement in precision for the identifier category is reflected in Table 7 (b)."

    The MIDI dataset is introduced as 'a hold-out test set to assess the optimal configuration identified through the RadPHI-test evaluation,' yet the prompt rule excluding study/image identifiers is introduced only after observing MIDI false positives. The headline MIDI instance-level numbers (precision 0.9721, recall 0.9781) are therefore not independent hold-out predictions; they are outputs of a pipeline whose text-analysis prompt was fitted to the same MIDI evaluations. The improvement from Table 7(a) to Table 7(b) is partly a consequence of this post-hoc adjustment rather than a measured property of the originally proposed configuration.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that Setup 1 (YOLOv11 + EasyOCR + GPT-4o) is the optimal pipeline, is an empirical comparison across four setups measured on RadPHI-test and then further exercised on MIDI. No equation defines the conclusion in terms of its inputs, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction in the main derivation, and no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears; the cited models and datasets are external. The PHI taxonomy is used consistently for label generation, prompts, and evaluation, but that is normal supervised benchmark practice rather than a circular derivation. The main caveat is external validity, which the paper itself flags in Section 6: 'our evaluation does not include testing our proposed approaches on real-world data containing PHI.' That limitation affects generalizability but is not circularity. The one evaluation-circularity element is the MIDI prompt adaptation: the same hold-out used to validate Setup 1 was also used to tune the identifier-classification prompt, so the improved Table 7(b) numbers are partly fitted rather than predicted. Because this tuning is transparent, does not alter the setup ranking, and the central comparison still rests on independent measurements of four pipelines, the overall circularity is minor.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's conclusions rest primarily on the realism of synthetic PHI overlays and on several hand-chosen evaluation settings, including thresholds, dataset composition, and prompt modifications. No new physical entities or fitted constants are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • EasyOCR low-bound text threshold = 0.2
    Set below the default to enlarge detected text regions; chosen by hand because it helped avoid missing single-letter markers, directly affecting Setup 2 localization and extraction performance (Section 3, EasyOCR paragraph).
  • RadPHI-test PHI ratio = 0.85
    85% of RadPHI-test images contain at least one PHI imprint; chosen to mimic realistic prevalence but influences case-level recall and dataset difficulty (Section 2.4).
  • Maximum imprints per RadPHI-test image = 8
    Arbitrary simulation constraint; limits instance-level complexity compared to MIDI, which can have up to 41 imprints per image (Sections 2.4 and 2.5).
  • YOLOv11 fine-tuning epochs and input size = 100 epochs, 640x640
    Explicitly chosen hyperparameters for the localization model, kept at package defaults otherwise; not fitted to a validation metric but selected for the study (Section 3).
  • MIDI identifier prompt modification = Explicit statement that study or image-related identifiers are not PHI
    Adjusted after observing false positives on the MIDI hold-out; this post hoc prompt tuning improves instance-level identifier precision from 0.6589 to 0.9325 (Section 5.2, Table 7b).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption HIPAA-defined PHI categories and the non-PHI categories in Table 1 are a valid basis for evaluating PHI detection.
    Used to define labels and GPT-4o prompts; if the task definition is wrong, all results describe a different task (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption Synthetic overlays of text imprints on public radiology images reproduce the visual properties of real burned-in PHI closely enough to rank pipeline designs.
    The authors acknowledge no real-world PHI data were tested; all evaluation sets, including MIDI, are generated by overlay procedures (Sections 2.4, 2.5, and Limitations).
  • domain assumption The unspecified bounding-box to ground-truth matching procedure for instance-level evaluation is accurate and fair across setups.
    Instance-level recall and precision are central to the comparison, but the paper does not specify the matching rule, such as IoU threshold, making the numbers hard to audit (Sections 4 and 5).
  • domain assumption GPT-4o's structured outputs are a reliable proxy for text extraction and NER without independent manual adjudication.
    Errors in GPT-4o extraction and analysis are not manually corrected or adjudicated; only pipeline error rate, i.e., failures to respond, is reported (Section 5.1, Table 6).
  • domain assumption YOLOv11 fine-tuned on RadPHI-train generalizes to modalities not in training, such as PET, mammography, and ultrasound.
    The MIDI evaluation supports this, but it is a strong claim based on a 200-image hold-out dataset (Section 6, Generalization).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring AI-based System Design for Pixel-level Protected Health Information Detection in Medical Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2FJD6JQH

@misc{pith2026250109552,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring AI-based System Design for Pixel-level Protected Health Information Detection in Medical Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2FJD6JQH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09552}
}
read the original abstract

De-identification of medical images is a critical step to ensure privacy during data sharing in research and clinical settings. The initial step in this process involves detecting Protected Health Information (PHI), which can be found in image metadata or imprinted within image pixels. Despite the importance of such systems, there has been limited evaluation of existing AI-based solutions, creating barriers to the development of reliable and robust tools. In this study, we present an AI-based pipeline for PHI detection, comprising three key modules: text detection, text extraction, and text analysis. We benchmark three models - YOLOv11, EasyOCR, and GPT-4o - across different setups corresponding to these modules, evaluating their performance on two different datasets encompassing multiple imaging modalities and PHI categories. Our findings indicate that the optimal setup involves utilizing dedicated vision and language models for each module, which achieves a commendable balance in performance, latency, and cost associated with the usage of Large Language Models (LLMs). Additionally, we show that the application of LLMs not only involves identifying PHI content but also enhances OCR tasks and facilitates an end-to-end PHI detection pipeline, showcasing promising outcomes through our analysis.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Guidance regarding methods for de-identification of protected health information in accordance with the health insurance portability and accountability act (HIPAA) privacy rule. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services , 2012

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union: Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, ...

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC , 2019

    Health Sector Cybersecurity Coordination Center: A Cost Analysis of Healthcare Sector Data Breaches. US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC , 2019. Available at: https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cost-analysis-of-healthcare-sector-data-breaches.pdf. Accessed 18 June 2025

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) , December 2024

    Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H): Innovative Solutions Opening For Imaging Data Exchange (INDEX). Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) , December 2024. Available at: https://sam.gov/opp/afb05a06fb1043ed99c8f39ab3021cbd/view. Accessed 9 April 2025

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Linux J 2007(159):2, 2007

    Kay A: Tesseract: an open-source optical character recognition engine. Linux J 2007(159):2, 2007

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Medical Image Deidentification, Cleaning and Compression Using Pylogik

    Kline A, Appadurai V , Luo Y , Shah S: Medical image deidentification, cleaning and compression using Pylogik. arXiv, DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.12322, May 2023. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.12322

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.12322 2023

  7. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies, Rome, Italy, pp

    Langlois Q, Szelagowski N, Vanderdonckt J, Jodogne S: Open platform for the de-identification of burned-in texts in medical images using deep learning. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies, Rome, Italy, pp. 297–304. SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publications , 2024. DOI: 10.522...

    work page doi:10.5220/0012430300003657 2024

  8. [8]

    arXiv, DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.12402, October 2024

    Rempe M, Heine L, Seibold C, Hörst F, Kleesiek J: De-identification of medical imaging data: A compre- hensive tool for ensuring patient privacy. arXiv, DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.12402, October 2024. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12402

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.12402 2024

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    J Imaging Inform Med , DOI: 10.1007/s10278-024-01098-7, October 2024

    Macdonald JA, Morgan KR, Konkel B, Abdullah K, Martin M, Ennis C, Lo JY , Stroo M, Snyder DC, Bashir MR: A method for efficient de-identification of DICOM metadata and burned-in pixel text. J Imaging Inform Med , DOI: 10.1007/s10278-024-01098-7, October 2024

    doi

  2. [10]

    J Med Syst, DOI: 10.1007/s10916-017-0736-1, April 2017

    Monteiro E, Costa C, Oliveira JL: A de-identification pipeline for ultrasound medical images in DICOM format. J Med Syst, DOI: 10.1007/s10916-017-0736-1, April 2017

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Int J Med Inform , DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.02.011, June 2019

    Vcelak P, Kryl M, Kratochvil M, Kleckova J: Identification and classification of DICOM files with burned-in text content. Int J Med Inform , DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.02.011, June 2019

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    Available at https://docs.md.ai/deid/deid/

    MD.ai. Available at https://docs.md.ai/deid/deid/. Accessed 28 April 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Available at https://cloud.google.com/healthcare-api/docs/concepts/de-identification

    Google Cloud. Available at https://cloud.google.com/healthcare-api/docs/concepts/de-identification. Accessed 9 December 2024. 19/26

    2024

  6. [14]

    Available at https://www.johnsnowlabs.com/deidentification/

    John Snow Labs. Available at https://www.johnsnowlabs.com/deidentification/. Accessed 9 December 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Available at https://glendor.com/

    Glendor. Available at https://glendor.com/. Accessed 24 January 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Presidio, version 2.2.358

    Microsoft. Presidio, version 2.2.358. Available at https://microsoft.github.io/presidio/. Accessed June 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Comput Biol Med, DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.108189, March 2024

    Jahan I, Laskar MT, Peng C, Huang JX: A comprehensive evaluation of large language models on benchmark biomedical text processing tasks. Comput Biol Med, DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.108189, March 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    J Imaging Inform Med , DOI: 10.1007/s10278-024-01182-y, July 2024

    Clunie D, Prior F, Rutherford M, Moore S, Parker W, Kondylakis H, Ludwigs C, Klenk J, Lou B, O’Sullivan LT, Marcus D, Dobes J, Gutman A, Farahani K: Summary of the National Cancer Institute 2023 Virtual Workshop on Medical Image De-identification-Part 1: Report of the MIDI Tas...

    2023

  11. [19]

    J Imaging Inform Med , DOI: 10.1007/s10278-024-01183-x, July 2024

    Clunie D, Taylor A, Bisson T, Gutman D, Xiao Y , Schwarz CG, Greve D, Gichoya J, Shih G, Kline A, Kopchick B, Farahani K: Summary of the National Cancer Institute 2023 Virtual Workshop on Medical Image De-identification- Part 2: Pathology Whole Slide Image De-identification, D...

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Available at https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/

    OpenAI. Available at https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/. Accessed 20 December 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Radiol Artif Intell 5(5), 2023

    Wasserthal J, Breit HC, Meyer MT, Pradella M, Hinck D, Sauter AW, Heye T, Boll DT, Cyriac J, Yang S, et al.: TotalSegmentator: robust segmentation of 104 anatomic structures in CT images. Radiol Artif Intell 5(5), 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Comput Biol Med 151:106221, 2022

    Huang Z, Pu X, Tang G, Ping M, Jiang G, Wang M, Wei X, Ren Y: BS-80K: The first large open-access dataset of bone scan images. Comput Biol Med 151:106221, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp

    Wang X, Peng Y , Lu L, Lu Z, Bagheri M, Summers RM: 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 on computer vision and pattern recognition...

    2017

  16. [24]

    Nat Commun 13(1):4128, 2022

    Antonelli M, Reinke A, Bakas S, Farahani K, Kopp-Schneider A, Landman BA, Litjens G, Menze B, Ronneberger O, Summers RM, et al.: The medical segmentation decathlon. Nat Commun 13(1):4128, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Available at https://www.synapse.org/Synapse:syn53065760

    Farahani K, Clunie D, Klenk J, Kopchick B, Diaz M, Pan Q, Pei L, Prior F, Rutherford M, Singh A, Sutton G, Wagner U: Medical Image De-Identification Benchmark (MIDI-B). Available at https://www.synapse.org/Synapse:syn53065760. Accessed 16 April 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Available at https://www.md.ai

    MD.ai. Available at https://www.md.ai. Accessed 28 April 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Available at https://docs.ultralytics.com/models/yolo11

    Ultralytics. Available at https://docs.ultralytics.com/models/yolo11. Accessed 5 December 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    In: Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Las Vegas, NV , USA, pp

    Redmon J, Divvala S, Girshick R, Farhadi A: You Only Look Once: Unified, Real-Time Object Detection. In: Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Las Vegas, NV , USA, pp. 779–788, DOI: 10.1109/CVPR.2016.91, June 2016

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    Available at https://github.com/JaidedAI/EasyOCR

    EasyOCR. Available at https://github.com/JaidedAI/EasyOCR. Accessed 20 December 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    arXiv, DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1904.01941, April 2019

    Baek Y , Lee B, Han D, Yun S, Lee H: Character region awareness for text detection. arXiv, DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1904.01941, April 2019

    1904 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2019

    Baek J, Kim G, Lee J, Park S, Han D, Yun S, Oh SJ, Lee H: What is wrong with scene text recognition model comparisons? Dataset and model analysis. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 33:1877–1901, 2020

    Brown T, Mann B, Ryder N, Subbiah M, Kaplan JD, Dhariwal P, Neelakantan A, Shyam P, Sastry G, Askell A, et al.: Language models are few-shot learners. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 33:1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  25. [33]

    Available at https://github.com/pydantic/pydantic

    Colvin S: Pydantic: Data validation and settings management using Python type annotations, version 2.10.6. Available at https://github.com/pydantic/pydantic. Accessed 28 April 2025. 20/26 A Results on RadPHI-test Class Case Precision Case Recall Instance Precision Instance Rec...

    2025

Pith tools

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