Biomedical image analysis competitions: The state of current participation practice
Authors:
Matthias Eisenmann,
Annika Reinke,
Vivienn Weru,
Minu Dietlinde Tizabi,
Fabian Isensee,
Tim J. Adler,
Patrick Godau,
Veronika Cheplygina,
Michal Kozubek,
Sharib Ali,
Anubha Gupta,
Jan Kybic,
Alison Noble,
Carlos Ortiz de Solórzano,
Samiksha Pachade,
Caroline Petitjean,
Daniel Sage,
Donglai Wei,
Elizabeth Wilden,
Deepak Alapatt,
Vincent Andrearczyk,
Ujjwal Baid,
Spyridon Bakas,
Niranjan Balu,
Sophia Bano
, et al. (331 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
The number of international benchmarking competitions is steadily increasing in various fields of machine learning (ML) research and practice. So far, however, little is known about the common practice as well as bottlenecks faced by the community in tackling the research questions posed. To shed light on the status quo of algorithm development in the specific field of biomedical imaging analysis,…
▽ More
The number of international benchmarking competitions is steadily increasing in various fields of machine learning (ML) research and practice. So far, however, little is known about the common practice as well as bottlenecks faced by the community in tackling the research questions posed. To shed light on the status quo of algorithm development in the specific field of biomedical imaging analysis, we designed an international survey that was issued to all participants of challenges conducted in conjunction with the IEEE ISBI 2021 and MICCAI 2021 conferences (80 competitions in total). The survey covered participants' expertise and working environments, their chosen strategies, as well as algorithm characteristics. A median of 72% challenge participants took part in the survey. According to our results, knowledge exchange was the primary incentive (70%) for participation, while the reception of prize money played only a minor role (16%). While a median of 80 working hours was spent on method development, a large portion of participants stated that they did not have enough time for method development (32%). 25% perceived the infrastructure to be a bottleneck. Overall, 94% of all solutions were deep learning-based. Of these, 84% were based on standard architectures. 43% of the respondents reported that the data samples (e.g., images) were too large to be processed at once. This was most commonly addressed by patch-based training (69%), downsampling (37%), and solving 3D analysis tasks as a series of 2D tasks. K-fold cross-validation on the training set was performed by only 37% of the participants and only 50% of the participants performed ensembling based on multiple identical models (61%) or heterogeneous models (39%). 48% of the respondents applied postprocessing steps.
△ Less
Submitted 12 September, 2023; v1 submitted 16 December, 2022;
originally announced December 2022.
QU-BraTS: MICCAI BraTS 2020 Challenge on Quantifying Uncertainty in Brain Tumor Segmentation - Analysis of Ranking Scores and Benchmarking Results
Authors:
Raghav Mehta,
Angelos Filos,
Ujjwal Baid,
Chiharu Sako,
Richard McKinley,
Michael Rebsamen,
Katrin Datwyler,
Raphael Meier,
Piotr Radojewski,
Gowtham Krishnan Murugesan,
Sahil Nalawade,
Chandan Ganesh,
Ben Wagner,
Fang F. Yu,
Baowei Fei,
Ananth J. Madhuranthakam,
Joseph A. Maldjian,
Laura Daza,
Catalina Gomez,
Pablo Arbelaez,
Chengliang Dai,
Shuo Wang,
Hadrien Reynaud,
Yuan-han Mo,
Elsa Angelini
, et al. (67 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Deep learning (DL) models have provided state-of-the-art performance in various medical imaging benchmarking challenges, including the Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) challenges. However, the task of focal pathology multi-compartment segmentation (e.g., tumor and lesion sub-regions) is particularly challenging, and potential errors hinder translating DL models into clinical workflows. Quantifying…
▽ More
Deep learning (DL) models have provided state-of-the-art performance in various medical imaging benchmarking challenges, including the Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) challenges. However, the task of focal pathology multi-compartment segmentation (e.g., tumor and lesion sub-regions) is particularly challenging, and potential errors hinder translating DL models into clinical workflows. Quantifying the reliability of DL model predictions in the form of uncertainties could enable clinical review of the most uncertain regions, thereby building trust and paving the way toward clinical translation. Several uncertainty estimation methods have recently been introduced for DL medical image segmentation tasks. Developing scores to evaluate and compare the performance of uncertainty measures will assist the end-user in making more informed decisions. In this study, we explore and evaluate a score developed during the BraTS 2019 and BraTS 2020 task on uncertainty quantification (QU-BraTS) and designed to assess and rank uncertainty estimates for brain tumor multi-compartment segmentation. This score (1) rewards uncertainty estimates that produce high confidence in correct assertions and those that assign low confidence levels at incorrect assertions, and (2) penalizes uncertainty measures that lead to a higher percentage of under-confident correct assertions. We further benchmark the segmentation uncertainties generated by 14 independent participating teams of QU-BraTS 2020, all of which also participated in the main BraTS segmentation task. Overall, our findings confirm the importance and complementary value that uncertainty estimates provide to segmentation algorithms, highlighting the need for uncertainty quantification in medical image analyses. Finally, in favor of transparency and reproducibility, our evaluation code is made publicly available at: https://github.com/RagMeh11/QU-BraTS.
△ Less
Submitted 23 August, 2022; v1 submitted 19 December, 2021;
originally announced December 2021.
