Cited by 128Machine Learning and Data ClassificationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationRetinal Imaging and Analysis

Improving Medical Images Classification With Label Noise Using Dual-Uncertainty Estimation

Ju, Lie, Wang, Xin, Wang, Lin, Mahapatra, Dwarikanath, Zhao, Xin, Zhou, Quan, Liu, Tongliang, Ge, Zongyuan·2022·IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging

Abstract

Deep neural networks are known to be data-driven and label noise can have a marked impact on model performance. Recent studies have shown great robustness to classic image recognition even under a high noisy rate. In medical applications, learning from datasets with label noise is more challenging since medical imaging datasets tend to have instance-dependent noise (IDN) and suffer from high observer variability. In this paper, we systematically discuss the two common types of label noise in medical images - disagreement label noise from inconsistency expert opinions and single-target label noise from biased aggregation of individual annotations. We then propose an uncertainty estimation-based framework to handle these two label noise amid the medical image classification task. We design a dual-uncertainty estimation approach to measure the disagreement label noise and single-target label noise via improved Direct Uncertainty Prediction and Monte-Carlo-Dropout. A boosting-based curriculum training procedure is later introduced for robust learning. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method by conducting extensive experiments on three different diseases with synthesized and real-world label noise: skin lesions, prostate cancer, and retinal diseases. We also release a large re-engineered database that consists of annotations from more than ten ophthalmologists with an unbiased golden standard dataset for evaluation and benchmarking. The dataset is available at https://mmai.group/peoples/julie/.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tmi.2022.3141425

Cites

5 of 5 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.

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?

  • Label noise can also derive from human uncertainty when using the consensus of multiple annotators, often needed due to the absence of a pathologically confirmed diagnosis label.

    “Label noise can also derive from human uncertainty when using the consensus of multiple annotators, often needed due to the absence of a pathologically confirmed diagnosis label, thereby introducing inherent uncertainty35–37.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ju, L., Wang, X., Wang, L., Mahapatra, D., Zhao, X., Zhou, Q., Liu, T., & Ge, Z.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Airdoc, Beijing, China
  • Harbin Engineering University (CN)
  • Inception Institute of Artificial Intelligence (AE)
  • Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications (CN)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
Published
2022-06
Volume
41
Issue
6
Pages
1533-1546
ISSN
  • 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-254X
OpenAlex
W4206676556
Cited by
128
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1
FWCI
7.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
Keywords
label noise, medical image classification, uncertainty estimation, observer variability, Monte Carlo dropout, curriculum learning, boosting, skin lesion classification, prostate cancer, retinal disease, annotation bias
MeSH terms
Diagnostic Imaging, Noise, Radiography, Neural Networks, Computer, Uncertainty

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