-
Why is the winner the best?
Authors:
Matthias Eisenmann,
Annika Reinke,
Vivienn Weru,
Minu Dietlinde Tizabi,
Fabian Isensee,
Tim J. Adler,
Sharib Ali,
Vincent Andrearczyk,
Marc Aubreville,
Ujjwal Baid,
Spyridon Bakas,
Niranjan Balu,
Sophia Bano,
Jorge Bernal,
Sebastian Bodenstedt,
Alessandro Casella,
Veronika Cheplygina,
Marie Daum,
Marleen de Bruijne,
Adrien Depeursinge,
Reuben Dorent,
Jan Egger,
David G. Ellis,
Sandy Engelhardt,
Melanie Ganz
, et al. (100 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
International benchmarking competitions have become fundamental for the comparative performance assessment of image analysis methods. However, little attention has been given to investigating what can be learnt from these competitions. Do they really generate scientific progress? What are common and successful participation strategies? What makes a solution superior to a competing method? To addre…
▽ More
International benchmarking competitions have become fundamental for the comparative performance assessment of image analysis methods. However, little attention has been given to investigating what can be learnt from these competitions. Do they really generate scientific progress? What are common and successful participation strategies? What makes a solution superior to a competing method? To address this gap in the literature, we performed a multi-center study with all 80 competitions that were conducted in the scope of IEEE ISBI 2021 and MICCAI 2021. Statistical analyses performed based on comprehensive descriptions of the submitted algorithms linked to their rank as well as the underlying participation strategies revealed common characteristics of winning solutions. These typically include the use of multi-task learning (63%) and/or multi-stage pipelines (61%), and a focus on augmentation (100%), image preprocessing (97%), data curation (79%), and postprocessing (66%). The "typical" lead of a winning team is a computer scientist with a doctoral degree, five years of experience in biomedical image analysis, and four years of experience in deep learning. Two core general development strategies stood out for highly-ranked teams: the reflection of the metrics in the method design and the focus on analyzing and handling failure cases. According to the organizers, 43% of the winning algorithms exceeded the state of the art but only 11% completely solved the respective domain problem. The insights of our study could help researchers (1) improve algorithm development strategies when approaching new problems, and (2) focus on open research questions revealed by this work.
△ Less
Submitted 30 March, 2023;
originally announced March 2023.
-
Understanding metric-related pitfalls in image analysis validation
Authors:
Annika Reinke,
Minu D. Tizabi,
Michael Baumgartner,
Matthias Eisenmann,
Doreen Heckmann-Nötzel,
A. Emre Kavur,
Tim Rädsch,
Carole H. Sudre,
Laura Acion,
Michela Antonelli,
Tal Arbel,
Spyridon Bakas,
Arriel Benis,
Matthew Blaschko,
Florian Buettner,
M. Jorge Cardoso,
Veronika Cheplygina,
Jianxu Chen,
Evangelia Christodoulou,
Beth A. Cimini,
Gary S. Collins,
Keyvan Farahani,
Luciana Ferrer,
Adrian Galdran,
Bram van Ginneken
, et al. (53 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Validation metrics are key for the reliable tracking of scientific progress and for bridging the current chasm between artificial intelligence (AI) research and its translation into practice. However, increasing evidence shows that particularly in image analysis, metrics are often chosen inadequately in relation to the underlying research problem. This could be attributed to a lack of accessibilit…
▽ More
Validation metrics are key for the reliable tracking of scientific progress and for bridging the current chasm between artificial intelligence (AI) research and its translation into practice. However, increasing evidence shows that particularly in image analysis, metrics are often chosen inadequately in relation to the underlying research problem. This could be attributed to a lack of accessibility of metric-related knowledge: While taking into account the individual strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of validation metrics is a critical prerequisite to making educated choices, the relevant knowledge is currently scattered and poorly accessible to individual researchers. Based on a multi-stage Delphi process conducted by a multidisciplinary expert consortium as well as extensive community feedback, the present work provides the first reliable and comprehensive common point of access to information on pitfalls related to validation metrics in image analysis. Focusing on biomedical image analysis but with the potential of transfer to other fields, the addressed pitfalls generalize across application domains and are categorized according to a newly created, domain-agnostic taxonomy. To facilitate comprehension, illustrations and specific examples accompany each pitfall. As a structured body of information accessible to researchers of all levels of expertise, this work enhances global comprehension of a key topic in image analysis validation.
△ Less
Submitted 23 February, 2024; v1 submitted 3 February, 2023;
originally announced February 2023.
-
Labeling instructions matter in biomedical image analysis
Authors:
Tim Rädsch,
Annika Reinke,
Vivienn Weru,
Minu D. Tizabi,
Nicholas Schreck,
A. Emre Kavur,
Bünyamin Pekdemir,
Tobias Roß,
Annette Kopp-Schneider,
Lena Maier-Hein
Abstract:
Biomedical image analysis algorithm validation depends on high-quality annotation of reference datasets, for which labeling instructions are key. Despite their importance, their optimization remains largely unexplored. Here, we present the first systematic study of labeling instructions and their impact on annotation quality in the field. Through comprehensive examination of professional practice…
▽ More
Biomedical image analysis algorithm validation depends on high-quality annotation of reference datasets, for which labeling instructions are key. Despite their importance, their optimization remains largely unexplored. Here, we present the first systematic study of labeling instructions and their impact on annotation quality in the field. Through comprehensive examination of professional practice and international competitions registered at the MICCAI Society, we uncovered a discrepancy between annotators' needs for labeling instructions and their current quality and availability. Based on an analysis of 14,040 images annotated by 156 annotators from four professional companies and 708 Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) crowdworkers using instructions with different information density levels, we further found that including exemplary images significantly boosts annotation performance compared to text-only descriptions, while solely extending text descriptions does not. Finally, professional annotators constantly outperform MTurk crowdworkers. Our study raises awareness for the need of quality standards in biomedical image analysis labeling instructions.
△ Less
Submitted 20 July, 2022;
originally announced July 2022.
-
Metrics reloaded: Recommendations for image analysis validation
Authors:
Lena Maier-Hein,
Annika Reinke,
Patrick Godau,
Minu D. Tizabi,
Florian Buettner,
Evangelia Christodoulou,
Ben Glocker,
Fabian Isensee,
Jens Kleesiek,
Michal Kozubek,
Mauricio Reyes,
Michael A. Riegler,
Manuel Wiesenfarth,
A. Emre Kavur,
Carole H. Sudre,
Michael Baumgartner,
Matthias Eisenmann,
Doreen Heckmann-Nötzel,
Tim Rädsch,
Laura Acion,
Michela Antonelli,
Tal Arbel,
Spyridon Bakas,
Arriel Benis,
Matthew Blaschko
, et al. (49 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Increasing evidence shows that flaws in machine learning (ML) algorithm validation are an underestimated global problem. Particularly in automatic biomedical image analysis, chosen performance metrics often do not reflect the domain interest, thus failing to adequately measure scientific progress and hindering translation of ML techniques into practice. To overcome this, our large international ex…
▽ More
Increasing evidence shows that flaws in machine learning (ML) algorithm validation are an underestimated global problem. Particularly in automatic biomedical image analysis, chosen performance metrics often do not reflect the domain interest, thus failing to adequately measure scientific progress and hindering translation of ML techniques into practice. To overcome this, our large international expert consortium created Metrics Reloaded, a comprehensive framework guiding researchers in the problem-aware selection of metrics. Following the convergence of ML methodology across application domains, Metrics Reloaded fosters the convergence of validation methodology. The framework was developed in a multi-stage Delphi process and is based on the novel concept of a problem fingerprint - a structured representation of the given problem that captures all aspects that are relevant for metric selection, from the domain interest to the properties of the target structure(s), data set and algorithm output. Based on the problem fingerprint, users are guided through the process of choosing and applying appropriate validation metrics while being made aware of potential pitfalls. Metrics Reloaded targets image analysis problems that can be interpreted as a classification task at image, object or pixel level, namely image-level classification, object detection, semantic segmentation, and instance segmentation tasks. To improve the user experience, we implemented the framework in the Metrics Reloaded online tool, which also provides a point of access to explore weaknesses, strengths and specific recommendations for the most common validation metrics. The broad applicability of our framework across domains is demonstrated by an instantiation for various biological and medical image analysis use cases.
△ Less
Submitted 23 February, 2024; v1 submitted 3 June, 2022;
originally announced June 2022.
-
Common Limitations of Image Processing Metrics: A Picture Story
Authors:
Annika Reinke,
Minu D. Tizabi,
Carole H. Sudre,
Matthias Eisenmann,
Tim Rädsch,
Michael Baumgartner,
Laura Acion,
Michela Antonelli,
Tal Arbel,
Spyridon Bakas,
Peter Bankhead,
Arriel Benis,
Matthew Blaschko,
Florian Buettner,
M. Jorge Cardoso,
Jianxu Chen,
Veronika Cheplygina,
Evangelia Christodoulou,
Beth Cimini,
Gary S. Collins,
Sandy Engelhardt,
Keyvan Farahani,
Luciana Ferrer,
Adrian Galdran,
Bram van Ginneken
, et al. (68 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
While the importance of automatic image analysis is continuously increasing, recent meta-research revealed major flaws with respect to algorithm validation. Performance metrics are particularly key for meaningful, objective, and transparent performance assessment and validation of the used automatic algorithms, but relatively little attention has been given to the practical pitfalls when using spe…
▽ More
While the importance of automatic image analysis is continuously increasing, recent meta-research revealed major flaws with respect to algorithm validation. Performance metrics are particularly key for meaningful, objective, and transparent performance assessment and validation of the used automatic algorithms, but relatively little attention has been given to the practical pitfalls when using specific metrics for a given image analysis task. These are typically related to (1) the disregard of inherent metric properties, such as the behaviour in the presence of class imbalance or small target structures, (2) the disregard of inherent data set properties, such as the non-independence of the test cases, and (3) the disregard of the actual biomedical domain interest that the metrics should reflect. This living dynamically document has the purpose to illustrate important limitations of performance metrics commonly applied in the field of image analysis. In this context, it focuses on biomedical image analysis problems that can be phrased as image-level classification, semantic segmentation, instance segmentation, or object detection task. The current version is based on a Delphi process on metrics conducted by an international consortium of image analysis experts from more than 60 institutions worldwide.
△ Less
Submitted 6 December, 2023; v1 submitted 12 April, 2021;
originally announced April 2021.
