ArticlePhysics in medicine and biology2020
Robustness study of noisy annotation in deep learning based medical image segmentation.
Article in Physics in medicine and biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Deep learning algorithm performance in contouring head and neck organs at risk: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.Biomedical engineering online · 2023Pooled it
- Comparative Performance Evaluation of Federated and Centralized Learning for Velum and OTE Segmentation in Sleep Endoscopy Images.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Inter-observer variability in breast segmentation and its impact on focused ultrasound thermal therapy modeling.Physics in medicine and biology · 2026Article
- Importance of the Quality of Annotation: Impact of Simulated Inter-Observer Variability on Deep Neural Network Automated Segmentation Model Performance.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Accuracy of deep learning-based AI models for early caries lesion detection: the influence of annotation quality and reference choice.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Deep Learning R-Wave Detection for Electrocardiographic Gating in Cardiac MRI.Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 2025Article
- Self-supervised learning for label-free segmentation in cardiac ultrasound.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Quantum dual-branch neural networks with transfer learning for early detection of skin cancer.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Deep learning-based classification of organs at risk and delineation guideline in pelvic cancer radiation therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Large scale crowdsourced radiotherapy segmentations across a variety of cancer anatomic sites.Scientific data · 2023Article
- Article
- Generalising from conventional pipelines using deep learning in high-throughput screening workflows.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Towards a safe and efficient clinical implementation of machine learning in radiation oncology by exploring model interpretability, explainability and data-model dependency.Physics in medicine and biology · 2022Review
- Validation for measurements of skeletal muscle areas using low-dose chest computed tomography.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Article
- Deep learning-based classification and structure name standardization for organ at risk and target delineations in prostate cancer radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- Deep learning-based medical image segmentation with limited labels.Physics in medicine and biology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Partly due to the use of exhaustive-annotated data, deep networks have achieved impressive performance on medical image segmentation. Medical imaging data paired with noisy annotation are, however, ubiquitous, but little is known about the effect of noisy annotation on deep learning based medical image segmentation. We studied the effect of noisy annotation in the context of mandible segmentation from CT images. First, 202 images of head and neck cancer patients were collected from our clinical database, where the organs-at-risk were annotated by one of twelve planning dosimetrists. The mandibles were roughly annotated as the planning avoiding structure. Then, mandible labels were checked and corrected by a head and neck specialist to get the reference standard. At last, by varying the ratios of noisy labels in the training set, deep networks were trained and tested for mandible segmentation. The trained models were further tested on other two public datasets. Experimental results indicated that the network trained with noisy labels had worse segmentation than that trained with reference standard, and in general, fewer noisy labels led to better performance. When using 20% or less noisy cases for training, no significant difference was found on the segmentation results between the models trained by noisy or reference annotation. Cross-dataset validation results verified that the models trained with noisy data achieved competitive performance to that trained with reference standard. This study suggests that the involved network is robust to noisy annotation to some extent in mandible segmentation from CT images. It also highlights the importance of labeling quality in deep learning. In the future work, extra attention should be paid to how to utilize a small number of reference standard samples to improve the performance of deep learning with noisy annotation.
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.