Beyond Multi-Stage Pipelines: A Label-Correlation Ensemble for Multi-Label Retinal Fundus Disease Classification
Organizations: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Abstract
Retinal fundus images frequently carry more than one disease, and public fundus datasets are heterogeneous and severely long-tailed. Clinical triage suggests a staged design, in which a screening gate, a disease-group router and group-specific classifiers operate in sequence, but it is unclear whether this hierarchy earns its complexity. We present a controlled comparison of three architectures on a unified 39-target label space built from RFMiD 1.0, RFMiD 2.0 and ODIR-5K (12,652 images): (i) a three-stage gated cascade of eight models, (ii) a flat model with 39 independent sigmoid outputs, and (iii) a label-correlation model that replaces the flat linear head with 39 learned label queries and a two-layer transformer decoder. All three share one Swin-V2-B backbone, one preprocessing pipeline and one training protocol, so differences are attributable to the architecture. Staging offers no consistent advantage: tracing every missed disease instance to the stage that lost it shows that the two coarse gates discard 34.2% of true instances while the fine-grained classifiers lose only 6.7%, and the gates' hard zeros depress the cascade's macro-AUC to 0.747. Label-correlation modeling gives the largest single gain, raising the detection rate from 0.621 to 0.682 (0.689 with test-time augmentation). Blending the flat and label-correlation models under four-view test-time augmentation is the best configuration on six of eight metrics (exact match 0.694, micro-F1 0.678, macro-F1 0.456, macro-AUC 0.972). On definition-matched class subsets it matches or exceeds four recent studies on macro- and micro-F1, most clearly on low-support pathologies. We also show that ensembling a gated cascade with continuous-output models is harmful, and that per-source negative sampling is needed to remove a dataset shortcut that otherwise yields a spurious AUC of 1.000.
Figures & tables
| Source | Train | Val | Test | Native labels |
| ODIR-5K (per eye) [ 7 ] | 6,092 | 861 | 1,642 | 8 categories + keywords |
| RFMiD 1.0 [ 4 ] | 1,920 | 640 | 640 | 46 conditions |
| RFMiD 2.0 [ 6 ] | 508 | 177 | 172 | 49 conditions |
| Merged | 8,520 | 1,678 | 2,454 | 39 scored targets |
| of which healthy | 3,652 | 617 | 1,005 |
| Stage 2 | Stage 3 | |||||
| Group | Diseases | Train | AUC | AP | AUC | AP |
| G1 Vascular | DR HR HTN BRVO CRVO TV CWS PRH MCA | 2,554 | .970 | .969 | .971 | .673 |
| G2 Exudative | ARMD DN EDN CSR CME RPEC MHL ERM PT | 698 | .932 | .775 | .926 | .582 |
| G3 Optic disc | ODC GLA ODP ODE AION TD ST | 806 | .902 | .745 | .942 | .660 |
| G4 Structural | MYA TSLN LS RT RD CF | 694 | .978 | .933 | .983 | .919 |
| G5 Media | MH CAT | 656 | .969 | .874 | .983 † | .948 † |
| Model | Out. | Images | LR | Batch | Ep. | Pat. | Monitor |
| Stage 1 | 2 s | 8,520 | 8 | 60 | 8 | AUC | |
| Stage 2 | 7 | 4,868 | 8 | 30 | 7 | macro-AUC | |
| Stage 3 ( 6) | 2–9 | 162–2,554 | 8 | 30 | 7 | macro-AP | |
| Flat | 39 | 8,520 | 8 | 30 | 7 | macro-AP | |
| Label-corr. | 39 | 8,520 | 16 | 25 | 6 | macro-AP |
| Threshold | .10 | .20 | .30 | .50 | .70 | .90 |
| Unhealthy recall | .896 | .876 | .862 | .845 | .825 | .770 |
| Healthy recall | .799 | .853 | .887 | .912 | .940 | .968 |
| Accuracy | .861 | .867 | .871 | .870 | .867 | .843 |
| Stage 1 accuracy / AUC | .852 / .928 |
| Stage 1 sensitivity / specificity | .795 / .933 |
| Diseased images rejected at Stage 1 | 297 of 1,449 |
| Stage 2 macro-AUC on received images | .955 |
| Exact group set / exact disease set | .732 / .687 |
| Images: correct healthy / exact set / partial | 942 / 744 / 213 |
| Images: total miss / false alarm | 492 / 63 |
| Image | Truth | Cascade | Flat |
| 4719_right | DR | exits at Stage 1 ( ): DR | DR |
| rfmid_1_20 | MHL, TSLN, LS | G2 not routed: MHL ; TSLN at Stage 3; LS ✓; DR FP | LS ✓; MHL ; TSLN |
| 3903_left | healthy | , routed to G3: GLA FP | GLA FP |
| rfmid_1_240 | TSLN, MH | TSLN ✓, MH ✓ | TSLN ✓, MH ✓ |
| 2322_right | CAT | CAT ✓ | CAT ✓ |
| Configuration | Exact | Jaccard | micro-F1 | macro-F1 | F1 well | macro-AUC | macro-AP | Detection | |
| 1 | Flat baseline | .6789 | .7229 | .6642 | .4426 | .5767 | .9430 | .5048 | .6207 |
| 2 | Flat + TTA 4 | .6817 | .7248 | .6637 | .4420 | .5707 | .9470 | .5144 | .6056 |
| 3 | Flat + TTA 4 + re-tuned thresholds | .6764 | .7273 | .6653 | .4444 | .5748 | .9470 | .5144 | .6492 |
| 4 | Three-stage cascade | .6870 | .7278 | .6495 | .3917 | .5248 | .7467 ∗ | .3713 ∗ | .5939 |
| 5 | Cascade + flat ensemble ( ) | .6817 | .7248 | .6543 | .4154 | .5615 | .9500 | .5213 | .5934 |
| 6 | Label-correlation | .6679 | .7239 | .6577 | .4518 | .5573 | .9662 | .4599 | .6818 |
| Target | Cascade | Flat | Best | AP | Thr. | Target | Cascade | Flat | Best | AP | Thr. | ||
| DR | 630 | .762 | .778 | .785 | .880 | .70 | RT | 13 | .316 | .375 | .421 | .367 | .35 |
| ARMD | 112 | .594 | .627 | .650 | .657 | .40 | CRVO | 11 | .632 | .667 | .667 | .669 | .72 |
| MH | 111 | .764 | .745 | .745 | .854 | .90 | CME | 10 | .286 | .444 | .588 | .636 | – |
| MYA | 105 | .802 | .812 | .838 | .902 | .68 | TV | 8 | .000 | .182 | .235 | .276 | – |
| ODC | 98 | .532 | .571 | .627 | .687 | .80 | CWS | 8 | .154 | .400 | .500 | .363 | – |
| CAT | 95 | .856 | .829 | .840 | .922 | .55 | TD | 8 | .375 | .182 | .154 | .211 | – |
| Flat | Three-stage cascade | |||||
| Source | macro-F1 | Exact | macro-F1 | Exact | Detection | |
| ODIR-5K | 1,642 | .625 | .746 | .614 | .757 | .611 |
| RFMiD 1.0 | 640 | .375 | .566 | .335 | .567 | .602 |
| RFMiD 2.0 | 172 | .319 | .459 | .272 | .465 | .447 |
| Study | Data | macro-F1 | micro-F1 | macro-AP | |
| C-Tran [ 8 ] | MuReD | 15 | .657 / .638 | – | .704 / .685 a |
| Dual CNN [ 12 ] | MuReD | 15 | .657 / .403 | .726 / .548 | .704 / .582 b |
| ASL cascade [ 13 ] | RFMiD | 26 | .478 / .476 | .702 / .626 | .530 / .539 |
| 12 models [ 11 ] | RFMiD | 26 | .478 / .340 | .702 / .509 | – |
| a Averaged over the comparator’s full label set. b Micro PR-AUC. For [ 11 ] , the best of twelve models per metric. | |||||
| Class | Ours | C-Tran | F1 | |
| DR | 630 | .785 | .859 | 0.074 |
| MH | 111 | .745 | .724 | 0.021 |
| ODC | 98 | .627 | .703 | 0.076 |
| TSLN | 61 | .646 | .787 | 0.141 |
| ARMD | 112 | .650 | .615 | 0.035 |
| DN | 47 | .549 | .607 | 0.058 |
Multi-Label Classification
Multi-label classification assigns several potentially related tags to each example, from medical findings and topics to objects and user interests.
See all 134 papers