Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31811980›Full record

ArticleMedical image analysis2020

LinSEM: Linearizing segmentation evaluation metrics for medical images.

Jieyu Li, Jayaram K Udupa, Yubing Tong, Lisheng Wang, Drew A Torigian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical image analysis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Predicting the Effort Required to Manually Mend Auto-Segmentations.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2026
    Article
  2. Hybrid-Intelligence Framework for Pathological Liver Segmentation and Disease Localization in CT Imaging.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jieyu LiInstitute of Image Processing and Pattern Recognition, Department of Automation, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 800 Dongchuan RD, Shanghai 200240, China; Medical Image Processing Group, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, 602 Goddard Building, 3710 Hamilton Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
Jayaram K UdupaMedical Image Processing Group, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, 602 Goddard Building, 3710 Hamilton Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States. Electronic address: jay@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Yubing TongMedical Image Processing Group, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, 602 Goddard Building, 3710 Hamilton Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
Lisheng WangInstitute of Image Processing and Pattern Recognition, Department of Automation, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 800 Dongchuan RD, Shanghai 200240, China.
Drew A TorigianMedical Image Processing Group, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, 602 Goddard Building, 3710 Hamilton Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.

Funding

Automated Object Contouring Methods & Software for Radiotherapy PlanningR42CA199735 · NCI · QUANTITATIVE RADIOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC · PI OWENS, STEVE, UDUPA, JAYARAM K · 2018 to 2020
$1.9M
NCI NIH HHS R42 CA199735
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous algorithms are available for segmenting medical images. Empirical discrepancy metrics are commonly used in measuring the similarity or difference between segmentations by algorithms and "true" segmentations. However, one issue with the commonly used metrics is that the same metric value often represents different levels of "clinical acceptability" for different objects depending on their size, shape, and complexity of form. An ideal segmentation evaluation metric should be able to reflect degrees of acceptability directly from metric values and be able to show the same acceptability meaning by the same metric value for objects of different shape, size, and form. Intuitively, metrics which have a linear relationship with degree of acceptability will satisfy these conditions of the ideal metric. This issue has not been addressed in the medical image segmentation literature. In this paper, we propose a method called LinSEM for linearizing commonly used segmentation evaluation metrics based on corresponding degrees of acceptability evaluated by an expert in a reader study. LinSEM consists of two main parts: (a) estimating the relationship between metric values and degrees of acceptability separately for each considered metric and object, and (b) linearizing any given metric value corresponding to a given segmentation of an object based on the estimated relationship. Since algorithmic segmentations do not usually cover the full range of variability of acceptability, we create a set (S

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnatomic LandmarksHumansImage EnhancementImage Processing, Computer-AssistedPattern Recognition, AutomatedAcceptability scoreEvaluation metricsLinear relationshipMedical image segmentation

Identifiers

PMID31811980
PMCPMC6980787

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.