How to Collect Segmentations for Biomedical Images? A Benchmark Evaluating the Performance of Experts, Crowdsourced Non-experts, and Algorithms
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Cellpose 2.0: how to train your own model
Pachitariu, M., & Stringer, C. (2022) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-022-01663-4 · Cited by 1,381 · see citing works
AggNet: Deep Learning From Crowds for Mitosis Detection in Breast Cancer Histology Images
Albarqouni, S., Baur, C., Achilles, F., Belagiannis, V., Demirci, S., & Navab, N. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2016.2528120 · Cited by 606 · see citing works
- 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)
- ORCID
- 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