ArticleMedical image analysis2021
Eigenrank by committee: Von-Neumann entropy based data subset selection and failure prediction for deep learning based medical image segmentation.
Article in Medical image analysis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning assisted segmentation of the lumbar intervertebral disc: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Pooled it
- Weakly-supervised High-resolution Segmentation of Mammography Images for Breast Cancer Diagnosis.Proceedings of machine learning research · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Manual delineation of anatomy on existing images is the basis of developing deep learning algorithms for medical image segmentation. However, manual segmentation is tedious. It is also expensive because clinician effort is necessary to ensure correctness of delineation. Consequently most algorithm development is based on a tiny fraction of the vast amount of imaging data collected at a medical center. Thus, selection of a subset of images from hospital databases for manual delineation - so that algorithms trained on such data are accurate and tolerant to variation, becomes an important challenge. We address this challenge using a novel algorithm. The proposed algorithm named 'Eigenrank by Committee' (EBC) first computes the degree of disagreement between segmentations generated by each DL model in a committee. Then, it iteratively adds to the committee, a DL model trained on cases where the disagreement is maximal. The disagreement between segmentations is quantified by the maximum eigenvalue of a Dice coefficient disagreement matrix a measure closely related to the Von Neumann entropy. We use EBC for selecting data subsets for manual labeling from a larger database of spinal canal segmentations as well as intervertebral disk segmentations. U-Nets trained on these subsets are used to generate segmentations on the remaining data. Similar sized data subsets are also randomly sampled from the respective databases, and U-Nets are trained on these random subsets as well. We found that U-Nets trained using data subsets selected by EBC, generate segmentations with higher average Dice coefficients on the rest of the database than U-Nets trained using random sampling (p < 0.05 using t-tests comparing averages). Furthermore, U-Nets trained using data subsets selected by EBC generate segmentations with a distribution of Dice coefficients that demonstrate significantly (p < 0.05 using Bartlett's test) lower variance in comparison to U-Nets trained using random sampling for all datasets. We believe that this lower variance indicates that U-Nets trained with EBC are more robust than U-Nets trained with random sampling.
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.