ArticleMedical image analysis2020
LinSEM: Linearizing segmentation evaluation metrics for medical images.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting the Effort Required to Manually Mend Auto-Segmentations.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2026Article
- Hybrid-Intelligence Framework for Pathological Liver Segmentation and Disease Localization in CT Imaging.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2026Article
- Large-scale multi-center CT and MRI segmentation of pancreas with deep learning.Medical image analysis · 2025Article
- GA-Net: A geographical attention neural network for the segmentation of body torso tissue composition.Medical image analysis · 2024Article
- Mendability Index: A new metric for estimating the effort required for manually editing auto-segmentations of objects of interest.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2023Article
- Combining natural and artificial intelligence for robust automatic anatomy segmentation: Application in neck and thorax auto-contouring.Medical physics · 2022Article
- An evaluation of performance measures for arterial brain vessel segmentation.BMC medical imaging · 2021Article
- Segmentation evaluation with sparse ground truth data: Simulating true segmentations as perfect/imperfect as those generated by humans.Medical image analysis · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.