Cited by 2,072Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMedical Imaging and Analysis

Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation (STAPLE): An Algorithm for the Validation of Image Segmentation

Open access
Warfield, S.K., Zou, K.H., Wells, W.M.·2004·IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging

Abstract

Characterizing the performance of image segmentation approaches has been a persistent challenge. Performance analysis is important since segmentation algorithms often have limited accuracy and precision. Interactive drawing of the desired segmentation by human raters has often been the only acceptable approach, and yet suffers from intra-rater and inter-rater variability. Automated algorithms have been sought in order to remove the variability introduced by raters, but such algorithms must be assessed to ensure they are suitable for the task. The performance of raters (human or algorithmic) generating segmentations of medical images has been difficult to quantify because of the difficulty of obtaining or estimating a known true segmentation for clinical data. Although physical and digital phantoms can be constructed for which ground truth is known or readily estimated, such phantoms do not fully reflect clinical images due to the difficulty of constructing phantoms which reproduce the full range of imaging characteristics and normal and pathological anatomical variability observed in clinical data. Comparison to a collection of segmentations by raters is an attractive alternative since it can be carried out directly on the relevant clinical imaging data. However, the most appropriate measure or set of measures with which to compare such segmentations has not been clarified and several measures are used in practice. We present here an expectation-maximization algorithm for simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE). The algorithm considers a collection of segmentations and computes a probabilistic estimate of the true segmentation and a measure of the performance level represented by each segmentation. The source of each segmentation in the collection may be an appropriately trained human rater or raters, or may be an automated segmentation algorithm. The probabilistic estimate of the true segmentation is formed by estimating an optimal combination of the segmentations, weighting each segmentation depending upon the estimated performance level, and incorporating a prior model for the spatial distribution of structures being segmented as well as spatial homogeneity constraints. STAPLE is straightforward to apply to clinical imaging data, it readily enables assessment of the performance of an automated image segmentation algorithm, and enables direct comparison of human rater and algorithm performance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tmi.2004.828354

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Nicoll, 2001, Basic Principles of Diagnostic Test Use and Interpretation, 1
  2. 10.2307/1932409.JSTOR1932409 · DOI
  3. Elfadel, 1993, From fields to networks

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Warfield, S. K., Zou, K. H., & Wells, W. M.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
Published
2004-07
Volume
23
Issue
7
Pages
903-921
ISSN
0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2148347694
Cited by
2,072
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 85 · 2025: 119 · 2024: 112 · 2023: 117 · 2022: 128 · 2021: 115 · 2020: 94 · 2019: 123 · 2018: 110 · 2017: 106 · 2016: 128 · 2015: 118 · 2014: 120 · 2013: 115 · 2012: 112
FWCI
33.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1r21ca089449-01, 5p41rr013218-14, 5r01ns035142-07)
  • National Institute on Aging (R01 AG 19513, R01AG019513)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R21MH067054, R21MH67054)
  • National Cancer Institute (P01CA067165, R01 CA86879, P01 CA-67165, R21 CA89449, R33 CA99015, R01CA086879)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01 NS-35142, R01-NS035142)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01 LM007861-01A1, R01 LM007861, R01 LM007861-02)
  • National Center for Research Resources (P41RR-013218, P41 RR13218)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
Keywords
staples, probabilistic segmentation, expectation-maximization algorithm, interobserver variability, medical image segmentation
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Brain, Decision Making, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Infant, Newborn, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Markov Chains, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Observer Variation, Phantoms, Imaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review