Cited by 68Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesCell Image Analysis TechniquesRetinal Imaging and Analysis

How to Collect Segmentations for Biomedical Images? A Benchmark Evaluating the Performance of Experts, Crowdsourced Non-experts, and Algorithms

Gurari, Danna, Theriault, Diane, Sameki, Mehrnoosh, Isenberg, Brett, Pham, Tuan A., Purwada, Alberto, Solski, Patricia, Walker, Matthew +3 more·2015·2015 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision

Abstract

Analyses of biomedical images often rely on demarcating the boundaries of biological structures (segmentation). While numerous approaches are adopted to address the segmentation problem including collecting annotations from domain-experts and automated algorithms, the lack of comparative benchmarking makes it challenging to determine the current state-of-art, recognize limitations of existing approaches, and identify relevant future research directions. To provide practical guidance, we evaluated and compared the performance of trained experts, crowd sourced non-experts, and algorithms for annotating 305 objects coming from six datasets that include phase contrast, fluorescence, and magnetic resonance images. Compared to the gold standard established by expert consensus, we found the best annotators were experts, followed by non-experts, and then algorithms. This analysis revealed that online paid crowd sourced workers without domain-specific backgrounds are reliable annotators to use as part of the laboratory protocol for segmenting biomedical images. We also found that fusing the segmentations created by crowd sourced internet workers and algorithms yielded improved segmentation results over segmentations created by single crowd sourced or algorithm annotations respectively. We invite extensions of our work by sharing our data sets and associated segmentation annotations (http://www.cs.bu.edu/~betke/Biomedical Image Segmentation).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/wacv.2015.160

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • The human-in-the-loop strategy used to annotate the TissueNet dataset took two human years of crowdsourced work for 14 image categories.

    “This is the strategy used to annotate the TissueNet dataset, which in total took two human years of crowdsourced work for 14 image categories6,17.”

    From Cellpose 2.0: how to train your own model (2022) · cites this paper as [17]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gurari, D., Theriault, D., Sameki, M., Isenberg, B., Pham, T. A., Purwada, A., Solski, P., Walker, M., Zhang, C., Wong, J. Y., & Betke, M.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • Draper Laboratory (US)
  • University of Aizu (JP)
  • Cornell University (US)
Venue
2015 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2015-01
Pages
1169-1176
ISSN
2472-6737 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1999045972
Cited by
68
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 1
FWCI
2.73
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
Keywords
medical image segmentation, segmentation benchmark, crowdsourcing, annotation reliability, segmentation fusion, fluorescence microscopy images, MRI images, gold standard annotation

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