Cited by 50Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesMachine Learning and AlgorithmsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

Intelligent labeling based on fisher information for medical image segmentation using deep learning

Open access
Sourati, Jamshid, Gholipour, Ali, Dy, Jennifer G., Tomas-Fernandez, Xavier, Kurugol, Sila, Warfield, Simon K.·2019·IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging

Abstract

Deep convolutional neural networks (CNN) have recently achieved superior performance at the task of medical image segmentation compared to classic models. However, training a generalizable CNN requires a large amount of training data, which is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to obtain in medical settings. Active Learning (AL) algorithms can facilitate training CNN models by proposing a small number of the most informative data samples to be annotated to achieve a rapid increase in performance. We proposed a new active learning method based on Fisher information (FI) for CNNs for the first time. Using efficient backpropagation methods for computing gradients together with a novel low-dimensional approximation of FI enabled us to compute FI for CNNs with a large number of parameters. We evaluated the proposed method for brain extraction with a patch-wise segmentation CNN model in two different learning scenarios: universal active learning and active semi-automatic segmentation. In both scenarios, an initial model was obtained using labeled training subjects of a source data set and the goal was to annotate a small subset of new samples to build a model that performs well on the target subject(s). The target data sets included images that differed from the source data by either age group (e.g. newborns with different image contrast) or underlying pathology that was not available in the source data. In comparison to several recently proposed AL methods and brain extraction baselines, the results showed that FI-based AL outperformed the competing methods in improving the performance of the model after labeling a very small portion of target data set (<0.25%).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tmi.2019.2907805

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Sourati et al. (2019) when trained with only 0.5% of the training voxels, achieves the same performance as the model that is trained using the entire training set.

    “When trained with only 0.5% of the training voxels, this scheme achieves the same performance as the model that is trained using the entire training set.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [22]Zhang T and Oles F, “ The value of unlabeled data for classification problems,” in Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2000, pp. 1191– 1198.
  2. [23]Chaudhuri K, Kakade SM, Netrapalli P, and Sanghavi S, “ Convergence rates of active learning for maximum likelihood estimation,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2015, pp. 1090– 1098.
  3. [29]Grosse R and Martens J, “ A kronecker-factored approximate fisher matrix for convolution layers,” in International Conference on Machine Learning, 2016, pp. 573– 582.
  4. [32]Roux NL, Manzagol P-A, and Bengio Y, “ Topmoumoute online natural gradient algorithm,” in Advances in neural information processing systems, 2008, pp. 849– 856.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sourati, J., Gholipour, A., Dy, J. G., Tomas-Fernandez, X., Kurugol, S., & Warfield, S. K.
Affiliations
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • Northeastern University (US)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
Published
2019-11
Volume
38
Issue
11
Pages
2642-2653
ISSN
  • 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-254X
OpenAlex
W2926307165
Cited by
50
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
FWCI
2.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R01 NS079788, R01 EB019483, R01 DK100404, IDDRC U54 HD090255, R01EB018988, R01NS106030)
  • Research Grant from the Boston Children’s Hospital Translational Research Program
  • McKnight Foundation
  • National Science Foundation (IIS-1546428)
  • Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America
  • American Gastroenterological Association
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
active learning (machine learning), Fisher information, medical image segmentation, brain extraction, semi-automatic segmentation, transfer learning, low-dimensional approximation, data-efficient training
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Algorithms, Brain, Child, Preschool, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Magnetic Resonance 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