Are fast labeling methods reliable? A case study of computer-aided expert annotations on microscopy slides
Authors:
Christian Marzahl,
Christof A. Bertram,
Marc Aubreville,
Anne Petrick,
Kristina Weiler,
Agnes C. Gläsel,
Marco Fragoso,
Sophie Merz,
Florian Bartenschlager,
Judith Hoppe,
Alina Langenhagen,
Anne Jasensky,
Jörn Voigt,
Robert Klopfleisch,
Andreas Maier
Abstract:
Deep-learning-based pipelines have shown the potential to revolutionalize microscopy image diagnostics by providing visual augmentations to a trained pathology expert. However, to match human performance, the methods rely on the availability of vast amounts of high-quality labeled data, which poses a significant challenge. To circumvent this, augmented labeling methods, also known as expert-algori…
▽ More
Deep-learning-based pipelines have shown the potential to revolutionalize microscopy image diagnostics by providing visual augmentations to a trained pathology expert. However, to match human performance, the methods rely on the availability of vast amounts of high-quality labeled data, which poses a significant challenge. To circumvent this, augmented labeling methods, also known as expert-algorithm-collaboration, have recently become popular. However, potential biases introduced by this operation mode and their effects for training neuronal networks are not entirely understood. This work aims to shed light on some of the effects by providing a case study for three pathologically relevant diagnostic settings. Ten trained pathology experts performed a labeling tasks first without and later with computer-generated augmentation. To investigate different biasing effects, we intentionally introduced errors to the augmentation. Furthermore, we developed a novel loss function which incorporates the experts' annotation consensus in the training of a deep learning classifier. In total, the pathology experts annotated 26,015 cells on 1,200 images in this novel annotation study. Backed by this extensive data set, we found that the consensus of multiple experts and the deep learning classifier accuracy, was significantly increased in the computer-aided setting, versus the unaided annotation. However, a significant percentage of the deliberately introduced false labels was not identified by the experts. Additionally, we showed that our loss function profited from multiple experts and outperformed conventional loss functions. At the same time, systematic errors did not lead to a deterioration of the trained classifier accuracy. Furthermore, a classifier trained with annotations from a single expert with computer-aided support can outperform the combined annotations from up to nine experts.
△ Less
Submitted 13 April, 2020;
originally announced April 2020.
Deep Learning-Based Quantification of Pulmonary Hemosiderophages in Cytology Slides
Authors:
Christian Marzahl,
Marc Aubreville,
Christof A. Bertram,
Jason Stayt,
Anne-Katherine Jasensky,
Florian Bartenschlager,
Marco Fragoso-Garcia,
Ann K. Barton,
Svenja Elsemann,
Samir Jabari,
Jens Krauth,
Prathmesh Madhu,
Jörn Voigt,
Jenny Hill,
Robert Klopfleisch,
Andreas Maier
Abstract:
Purpose: Exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH) is a common syndrome in sport horses with negative impact on performance. Cytology of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid by use of a scoring system is considered the most sensitive diagnostic method. Macrophages are classified depending on the degree of cytoplasmic hemosiderin content. The current gold standard is manual grading, which is however mon…
▽ More
Purpose: Exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH) is a common syndrome in sport horses with negative impact on performance. Cytology of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid by use of a scoring system is considered the most sensitive diagnostic method. Macrophages are classified depending on the degree of cytoplasmic hemosiderin content. The current gold standard is manual grading, which is however monotonous and time-consuming. Methods: We evaluated state-of-the-art deep learning-based methods for single cell macrophage classification and compared them against the performance of nine cytology experts and evaluated inter- and intra-observer variability. Additionally, we evaluated object detection methods on a novel data set of 17 completely annotated cytology whole slide images (WSI) containing 78,047 hemosiderophages. Resultsf: Our deep learning-based approach reached a concordance of 0.85, partially exceeding human expert concordance (0.68 to 0.86, $μ$=0.73, $σ$ =0.04). Intra-observer variability was high (0.68 to 0.88) and inter-observer concordance was moderate (Fleiss kappa = 0.67). Our object detection approach has a mean average precision of 0.66 over the five classes from the whole slide gigapixel image and a computation time of below two minutes. Conclusion: To mitigate the high inter- and intra-rater variability, we propose our automated object detection pipeline, enabling accurate, reproducible and quick EIPH scoring in WSI.
△ Less
Submitted 12 August, 2019;
originally announced August 2019.
