Mitosis domain generalization in histopathology images -- The MIDOG challenge
Authors:
Marc Aubreville,
Nikolas Stathonikos,
Christof A. Bertram,
Robert Klopleisch,
Natalie ter Hoeve,
Francesco Ciompi,
Frauke Wilm,
Christian Marzahl,
Taryn A. Donovan,
Andreas Maier,
Jack Breen,
Nishant Ravikumar,
You** Chung,
**ah Park,
Ramin Nateghi,
Fattaneh Pourakpour,
Rutger H. J. Fick,
Saima Ben Hadj,
Mostafa Jahanifar,
Nasir Rajpoot,
Jakob Dexl,
Thomas Wittenberg,
Satoshi Kondo,
Maxime W. Lafarge,
Viktor H. Koelzer
, et al. (10 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
The density of mitotic figures within tumor tissue is known to be highly correlated with tumor proliferation and thus is an important marker in tumor grading. Recognition of mitotic figures by pathologists is known to be subject to a strong inter-rater bias, which limits the prognostic value. State-of-the-art deep learning methods can support the expert in this assessment but are known to strongly…
▽ More
The density of mitotic figures within tumor tissue is known to be highly correlated with tumor proliferation and thus is an important marker in tumor grading. Recognition of mitotic figures by pathologists is known to be subject to a strong inter-rater bias, which limits the prognostic value. State-of-the-art deep learning methods can support the expert in this assessment but are known to strongly deteriorate when applied in a different clinical environment than was used for training. One decisive component in the underlying domain shift has been identified as the variability caused by using different whole slide scanners. The goal of the MICCAI MIDOG 2021 challenge has been to propose and evaluate methods that counter this domain shift and derive scanner-agnostic mitosis detection algorithms. The challenge used a training set of 200 cases, split across four scanning systems. As a test set, an additional 100 cases split across four scanning systems, including two previously unseen scanners, were given. The best approaches performed on an expert level, with the winning algorithm yielding an F_1 score of 0.748 (CI95: 0.704-0.781). In this paper, we evaluate and compare the approaches that were submitted to the challenge and identify methodological factors contributing to better performance.
△ Less
Submitted 6 April, 2022;
originally announced April 2022.
