Picking the Right Image to Classify: Reliable-Input Selection in Teledermatology
Authors: Fabian Gröger, Marco Weishaupt, Philippe Gottfrois, Simone Lionetti, Linda Wermelinger, Nipun Ranasekara, Ludovic Amruthalingam, Alexander A. Navarini, +1 more
Organizations: University of Basel · Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts · University Hospital Basel
Dermatology models face distribution shifts in teledermatology settings, where submitted images differ from the training data in lighting, angle, distance, focus, and framing. These test-time images are ordinary clinical photographs, but some fall outside the model's training conditions, leading the model to often misclassify them due to shifts in acquisition between training and deployment. When multiple images of the same case exist (several photos of one patient or lesion), a natural way to improve accuracy is therefore to select the image the model is most likely to classify correctly. We call this task reliable-input selection. An oracle that, for each case, selects a correctly classified image when one exists raises weighted F1 by about 20 percentage points on average across six dermatology datasets and nine frozen backbones. This oracle is an upper bound that sees the labels, whereas a selector must choose blindly. Capturing this gain in practice is hard. A selector that needs no pretraining data applies to any frozen model, including those whose data is not public. It must judge reliability from quantities the model exposes at inference: its embeddings, their norms, and its confidence. We benchmark four such training-data-free selectors: the embedding norm, the neighborhood consensus among a case's images, the stability of the prediction under small perturbations, and the model's own confidence. No training-data-free selector substantially narrows this oracle gap. The best of them is the model's own confidence, but it recovers only a small part of the gap on the clinical datasets. A small labeled reference set does not help either: the best selector overall, a fusion of confidence and Mahalanobis distance, still leaves most of the gap. To our knowledge, this is the first study to introduce and benchmark reliable input selection, a clinically important, unsolved task.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Reliable-input selection. In teledermatology a patient submits several images of their skin condition, varying in body site and acquisition. Here one matches the model’s training conditions (standardized) and two differ in angle, distance, or lighting (off-condition). A frozen model embeds each image as zv and classifies the standardized image correctly ( ✓ ) but the off-condition images incorrectly ( × ), silent failures that selection avoids. The task is to score the images and classify the selected one.
Figure 2: A large oracle gap that current selectors barely narrow. Weighted F1 on the six datasets, grouped by multi-image regime (mean over nine frozen backbones and 10 seeds, error bars show ±1 standard deviation across backbones). An oracle that picks a correct image per case (green) reaches F1 well above random selection (gray), whereas the best training-data-free selector (blue) recovers only a small part of that gap. We baseline against random throughout. A fixed best view is omitted, as it is defined only for the aligned datasets and is not deployable (see Sec. 4.1 ).
per-patient
viewpoint / modality
repeated capture
Method
PASSION
DermaCon-IN
SCIN
derm7pt
PAD-UFES
HAM10000
mean
majority vote
+3.9
+2.6
+1.3
+0.2
+0.7
+1.0
+1.6
soft vote
+6.3
+6.0
+2.4
+4.8
+3.6
+3.6
+4.4
training-data-free
embedding norm
+0.1
+0.4
−0.2
+0.6
+0.4
+0.2
+0.3
neighborhood consensus
+1.1
+0.7
+1.0
+1.0
+0.5
+0.5
+0.8
Table 1: No selector recovers much of the oracle gap (weighted-F1 gain over random selection, percentage points, mean over nine backbones, 10 seeds). The strongest training-data-free selector is the model’s own confidence. A fusion with a class-conditional Mahalanobis score (a small labeled reference set) is best overall, yet both leave the bulk of the oracle gap (last row) unexploited. Majority vote and soft vote aggregate a case’s images instead of selecting one. Datasets are grouped by multi-image regime. The standard deviation across backbones is at most 3 points.
Figure 3: Why selection is hard: ample room, weak signal. Left: every case is all-correct (selection irrelevant), no-image-correct (unrescuable), or mixed (rescuable). The mixed group is large, so there is room to rescue. Right: AUROC of each training-data-free score for per-image correctness on the mixed cases. The embedding norm and neighborhood consensus sit at chance. Only the classifier’s confidence is clearly above it, and even then only moderately, too weak to exploit that room. All panels use all six datasets, in the same order as Fig. 2 . The dermoscopy datasets (derm7pt, HAM10000) show the same pattern as the clinical ones. Means over nine backbones and 10 seeds. Error bars on the right panel show ±1 standard deviation across backbones.
Applied Artificial Intelligence Lab (LIAA), Computer Sciences Institute (ICC), Universidad de Buenos Aires - CONICET, Argentina · Research Institute for Signals, Systems and Computational Intelligence, sinc(i), Universidad Nacional del Litoral - CONICET, Argentina