PreprintCited by 38Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

The KiTS21 Challenge: Automatic segmentation of kidneys, renal tumors, and renal cysts in corticomedullary-phase CT

Open access
Heller, Nicholas, Isensee, Fabian, Trofimova, Dasha, Tejpaul, Resha, Zhao, Zhongchen, Chen, Huai, Wang, Lisheng, Golts, Alex +37 more·2023·arXiv

Abstract

This paper presents the challenge report for the 2021 Kidney and Kidney Tumor Segmentation Challenge (KiTS21) held in conjunction with the 2021 international conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Interventions (MICCAI). KiTS21 is a sequel to its first edition in 2019, and it features a variety of innovations in how the challenge was designed, in addition to a larger dataset. A novel annotation method was used to collect three separate annotations for each region of interest, and these annotations were performed in a fully transparent setting using a web-based annotation tool. Further, the KiTS21 test set was collected from an outside institution, challenging participants to develop methods that generalize well to new populations. Nonetheless, the top-performing teams achieved a significant improvement over the state of the art set in 2019, and this performance is shown to inch ever closer to human-level performance. An in-depth meta-analysis is presented describing which methods were used and how they faired on the leaderboard, as well as the characteristics of which cases generally saw good performance, and which did not. Overall KiTS21 facilitated a significant advancement in the state of the art in kidney tumor segmentation, and provides useful insights that are applicable to the field of semantic segmentation as a whole.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2307.01984

Cites

49 of 49 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?

  • Tumor segmentation is less stable because lesions are not tied to a fixed anatomical shape or location and may be small, heterogeneous, or weakly contrasted.

    “Tumor segmentation is less stable because lesions are not tied to a fixed anatomical shape or location and may be small, heterogeneous, or weakly contrasted [3,8,23].”

    From Correction-aware interactive 3D tumor segmentation with sparse and revisable prompts (2026) · cites this paper as [8]

    Section 3.4.3 reports lower average Dice for tumor than kidney segmentation (0.8813 versus 0.9748), and Section 3.1 describes substantial variation in how teams delineated the tumor–kidney boundary. The paper does not attribute that difficulty to lesions lacking a fixed shape or location, or to their being small, heterogeneous, or weakly contrasted. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • MSD-Colon contains 126 abdominal CT volumes with colon tumor annotations, and KiTS21 contains 300 CT volumes with kidney tumor annotations.

    “MSD-Colon contains 126 abdominal CT volumes with colon tumor annotations, and KiTS21 contains 300 CT volumes with kidney tumor annotations.”

    From Correction-aware interactive 3D tumor segmentation with sparse and revisable prompts (2026) · cites this paper as [8]

    Section 2.1.1 (page unavailable) identifies 300 CT cases for the KiTS21 training set, supporting the kidney-tumor portion of the claim. Section 2.1.2 (page unavailable) describes a separate 100-case test set, so 300 is not the full KiTS21 dataset. The paper does not address the claimed 126 MSD-Colon volumes or their annotations. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Different lesion appearances and annotation targets have been reported across tumor benchmarks.

    “different lesion appearances and annotation targets have been reported across tumor benchmarks [3,8,23]”

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

6 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [19][19] Tobias Heimann, Bryan J Morrison, Martin A Styner, Marc Niethammer, and Simon Warfield. Segmentation of knee images: a grand challenge. In Proc. MICCAI Workshop on Medical Image Analysis for the Clinic , volume 1. Beijing, China, 2010. -
  2. [22][22] Nicholas Heller, Resha Tejpaul, Fabian Isensee, Tarik Benidir, Martin Hofmann, P Blake, Zachary Rengal, Keenan Moore, Niranjan Sathianathen, Arveen Adith Kalapara, et al. Computer-generated renal nephrometry scores yield comparable predictive results to those of human-expert scores in predicting oncologic and perioperative outcomes. The Journal of urology , 207(5):1105-1115, 2022. -
  3. [30][30] Alexander Kutikov and Robert G Uzzo. The renal nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. The Journal of urology , 182(3):844-853, 2009. -
  4. [31][31] Zo´ e Lambert, Caroline Petitjean, Bernard Dubray, and Su Kuan. Segthor: segmentation of thoracic organs at risk in ct images. In 2020 Tenth International Conference on Image Processing Theory, Tools and Applications (IPTA) , pages 1-6. IEEE, 2020. -
  5. [49][49] Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research , 9(11), 2008. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heller, N., Isensee, F., Trofimova, D., Tejpaul, R., Zhao, Z., Chen, H., Wang, L., Golts, A., Khapun, D., Shats, D., Shoshan, Y., Gilboa-Solomon, F., George, Y., Yang, X., Zhang, J., Zhang, J., Xia, Y., Wu, M., Liu, Z., Walczak, E., McSweeney, S., Vasdev, R., Hornung, C., Solaiman, R., Schoephoerster, J., Abernathy, B., Wu, D., Abdulkadir, S., Byun, B., Spriggs, J., Struyk, G., Austin, A., Simpson, B., Hagstrom, M., Virnig, S., French, J., Venkatesh, N., Chan, S., Moore, K., Jacobsen, A., Austin, S., Austin, M., Regmi, S., Papanikolopoulos, N., & Weight, C.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4383472689
Cited by
35
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 13
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Keywords
kidney segmentation, semantic segmentation, web-based annotation, cross-population generalization

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