README: how the study was run, the gate protocol, and what failed
Browse files
README.md
CHANGED
|
@@ -35,6 +35,36 @@ frozen self-supervised medical vision transformers.
|
|
| 35 |
| Lesion-routed depth | 1.6× FLOPs at 98% small-lesion sensitivity |
|
| 36 |
| Negative result | coverage floor 0.22 vs membership 0.82 (small-lesion recall) |
|
| 37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 38 |
## Layout
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
```
|
|
|
|
| 35 |
| Lesion-routed depth | 1.6× FLOPs at 98% small-lesion sensitivity |
|
| 36 |
| Negative result | coverage floor 0.22 vs membership 0.82 (small-lesion recall) |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
+
## How the study was run, and what failed
|
| 39 |
+
|
| 40 |
+
**Question.** Where does a frozen CT foundation model (MedDINOv3, ViT-B/16) store lesion information, and can a model
|
| 41 |
+
spend fewer tokens on easy slices without losing lesions?
|
| 42 |
+
|
| 43 |
+
**Compute path.** One person, no institutional cluster. LIDC-IDRI DICOM (about 124 GB) was streamed from bucket storage
|
| 44 |
+
into cloud jobs, never downloaded locally. Frozen embeddings were encoded once into a cached token bank (2.1M CT tokens),
|
| 45 |
+
and every probe ran on that cache instead of fine-tuning the backbone. That gave up end-to-end adaptation, but made
|
| 46 |
+
dozens of controlled probes affordable.
|
| 47 |
+
|
| 48 |
+
**Gated protocol.** Seven gates (0–6), each with pass/fail thresholds fixed before the run
|
| 49 |
+
(`configs/thresholds.lock.json`), and a report written after each (`gate_reports/`). Several gates failed, and the
|
| 50 |
+
failures are kept:
|
| 51 |
+
- **Gate 1 failed at the final layer.** The label-free lesion scores reached AUROC 0.565 against 0.767 for attention
|
| 52 |
+
saliency (`gate_reports/gate_1_postmortem.md`). The signal was there at mid-depth: block 3 reached **0.871**, which
|
| 53 |
+
passed the locked threshold.
|
| 54 |
+
- **Coverage-constrained token selection failed.** Small-lesion recall 0.22 against 0.82 for membership pruning
|
| 55 |
+
(`gate_reports/NEGATIVE_RESULT.md`): coverage rewards diverse spanning, but rare pathology needs concentration.
|
| 56 |
+
- **The low-rank hypothesis was refuted.** A spectrum analysis ruled out redundancy: lesion tokens matter because they
|
| 57 |
+
are rare (`research_v4/rarity_route_derivation.md`).
|
| 58 |
+
- **The mid-layer peak tracks view-invariance** (ρ = −0.94 with AUROC; `research_v3/SUMMARY.md`), not loss of spatial
|
| 59 |
+
information.
|
| 60 |
+
- **Gate 5 was not run.** Whether per-view token selection during pretraining would break the self-supervised
|
| 61 |
+
invariance is untested; the method takes the gate's fallback and is applied at inference time only.
|
| 62 |
+
|
| 63 |
+
**A data error found and fixed.** The original manifest's per-slice nodule positions did not line up with the
|
| 64 |
+
authoritative DICOM-SEG masks under any slice ordering. All patch masks were rebuilt from DICOM-SEG
|
| 65 |
+
(`jobs/materialize_lidc_masks_job.py`) before any gate result was trusted. Gate results are scored on held-out data
|
| 66 |
+
with 95% confidence intervals.
|
| 67 |
+
|
| 68 |
## Layout
|
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
```
|