<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>My research on Theo Sourget</title><link>https://tsourget.fr/posts/my-research/</link><description>Recent content in My research on Theo Sourget</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://tsourget.fr/posts/my-research/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Dataset Diversity Metrics and Impact on Classification Models​</title><link>https://tsourget.fr/posts/my-research/dataset-diversity-metrics/</link><pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://tsourget.fr/posts/my-research/dataset-diversity-metrics/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Diversity is commonly viewed as a good and important feature for a dataset, as a large and diverse dataset should lead to better results and generalization. However, while datasets are often claimed to be diverse, what &amp;ldquo;diverse&amp;rdquo; is, is not clearly defined and may change from paper to paper. It could, for example, refer to the demographics of the patients, the scanner being used, the annotators, etc.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are some metrics to quantitatively measure the diversity of a set, they are however mostly used in a generative context such as image generation or answers from LLMs. Their usage on real datasets and their correlation with a downstream performance task is therefore unclear. Finally, while datasets are increasingly multimodal, for example containing chest X-rays and radiology reports with metadata, most studies only assess the diversity of a single modality for a dataset.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>[Citation needed] Data usage and citation practices in medical imaging conferences​</title><link>https://tsourget.fr/posts/my-research/citation-needed/</link><pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://tsourget.fr/posts/my-research/citation-needed/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Click on the image below to see my oral session at MIDL 2024:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.youtube.com/live/-mV53dZZs9o?t=20616s" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;&lt;img src="https://img.youtube.com/vi/-mV53dZZs9o/0.jpg" alt="Link to MIDL presentation video"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nowadays, the evaluation of models heavily relies on publicly available datasets used as benchmarking. While this could be a nice thing for a fair comparison of different models, we also question the effect of the diversity or more precisely a potential lack of diversity in research papers when selecting the datasets. A gap has been observed between the results showcased by AI models in research and their adoption in clinical workflow, we hypothesise that this gap could partly be a result of an overfitting of research on these datasets and we wanted to evaluate their usage to know if some are more popular than others. While this could seem like a straightforward task we’ll see that because of some elements it turned out to be not so simple.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>