Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Digital otoscopy is a compact biomedical imaging modality, but retrospective image-classification results can be distorted by duplicate content, acquisition-domain cues, uncertain confidence, and dataset prevalence. We revised the framework as MaskRet-Oto, a region-conditioned evidence-retrieval and calibration pipeline rather than a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system. The working archive contained 3,000 RGB otoscopic images in five approximately balanced categories. Exact-hash auditing identified 78 duplicated files; the remaining 2,922 images formed 1,956 within-class perceptual-hash groups that were kept intact across training (n=2,046), validation (n=438), and test (n=438) partitions. Because patient identifiers were unavailable, this procedure controls only exact/near-duplicate image leakage and cannot establish patient-independent evaluation; different views from the same patient or examination could remain in different splits. The soft central field-of-view operator retained 70.9% of image support and is now described as a predefined region-conditioning prior, not as empirical proof that shortcut learning was prevented. On the internal image-level test set, the compact 64 x 64 CNN pipeline achieved 98.17% accuracy (95% bootstrap confidence interval 96.80-99.32%), 98.23% macro-F1, MCC 0.977, and macro-AUC 0.9994. Training-only visual retrieval reached 99.54% top-5 recall. The source-tagged textual memory contains 15 curated statements retrieved by TF-IDF; no language model is used and the component is not presented as a clinical knowledge base or RAG. Retrieval fusion did not improve top-1 accuracy; its role is limited to exposing similar training cases, attaching source-tagged evidence, and contributing a small additional calibration change after temperature scaling. Selective prediction concentrated all observed errors in the lowest-confidence deciles in this same test set, but this is a post hoc internal utility surrogate, not a clinical-utility validation. The nearly balanced benchmark distribution also means that calibration values should not be interpreted as real-world disease-risk probabilities. Patient-level, device-diverse, prevalence-aware, and prospective validation with stronger standard backbones is required before clinical use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Singh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: