ArticleScientific reports2022
Lessons from a breast cell annotation competition series for school pupils.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Task design for crowdsourced glioma cell annotation in microscopy images.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Due to COVID-19 outbreaks, most school pupils have had to be home-schooled for long periods of time. Two editions of a web-based competition "Beat the Pathologists" for school age participants in the UK ran to fill up pupils' spare time after home-schooling and evaluate their ability on contributing to AI annotation. The two editions asked the participants to annotate different types of cells on Ki67 stained breast cancer images. The Main competition was at four levels with different level of complexity. We obtained annotations of four kinds of cells entered by school pupils and ground truth from expert pathologists. In this paper, we analyse school pupils' performance on differentiating different kinds of cells and compare their performance with two neural networks (AlexNet and VGG16). It was observed that children tend to get very good performance in tumour cell annotation with the best F1 measure 0.81 which is a metrics taking both false positives and false negatives into account. Low accuracy was achieved with F1 score 0.75 on positive non-tumour cells and 0.59 on negative non-tumour cells. Superior performance on non-tumour cell detection was achieved by neural networks. VGG16 with training from scratch achieved an F1 score over 0.70 in all cell categories and 0.92 in tumour cell detection. We conclude that non-experts like school pupils have the potential to contribute to large-scale labelling for AI algorithm development if sufficient training activities are organised. We hope that competitions like this can promote public interest in pathology and encourage participation by more non-experts for 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.