Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37672900›Full record

ArticleMedical image analysis2023

USE-Evaluator: Performance metrics for medical image segmentation models supervised by uncertain, small or empty reference annotations in neuroimaging.

Sophie Ostmeier, Brian Axelrod, Fabian Isensee, Jeroen Bertels, Michael Mlynash, Soren Christensen, Maarten G Lansberg, Gregory W Albers, Rajen Sheth, Benjamin F J Verhaaren and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical image analysis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Deep Learned Segmentations of Inflammation for Novel ⁹⁹Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

14 authors.

Sophie OstmeierStanford University, Center of Academic Medicine, 453 Quarry Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94304, United States of America. Electronic address: sostm@stanford.edu.
Brian AxelrodStanford University, Center of Academic Medicine, 453 Quarry Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94304, United States of America.
Fabian IsenseeDivision of Medical Image Computing, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Jeroen BertelsKU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Michael MlynashStanford University, Center of Academic Medicine, 453 Quarry Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94304, United States of America.
Soren ChristensenGray number analytics, Lomma, Sweden.
Maarten G LansbergStanford University, Center of Academic Medicine, 453 Quarry Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94304, United States of America.
Gregory W AlbersStanford University, Center of Academic Medicine, 453 Quarry Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94304, United States of America.
Rajen ShethIn personal capacity.
Benjamin F J VerhaarenKU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Abdelkader MahammediStanford University, Center of Academic Medicine, 453 Quarry Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94304, United States of America.
Li-Jia LiStanford University, Center of Academic Medicine, 453 Quarry Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94304, United States of America.
Greg ZaharchukStanford University, Center of Academic Medicine, 453 Quarry Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94304, United States of America.
Jeremy J HeitStanford University, Center of Academic Medicine, 453 Quarry Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94304, United States of America.

Funding

Predicting Tissue and Functional Outcome in Acute StrokeR01NS130172 · NINDS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Gregory George Zaharchuk · 2023 to 2026
$2.4M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS130172
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Performance metrics for medical image segmentation models are used to measure the agreement between the reference annotation and the predicted segmentation. Usually, overlap metrics, such as the Dice, are used as a metric to evaluate the performance of these models in order for results to be comparable. However, there is a mismatch between the distributions of cases and the difficulty level of segmentation tasks in public data sets compared to clinical practice. Common metrics used to assess performance fail to capture the impact of this mismatch, particularly when dealing with datasets in clinical settings that involve challenging segmentation tasks, pathologies with low signal, and reference annotations that are uncertain, small, or empty. Limitations of common metrics may result in ineffective machine learning research in designing and optimizing models. To effectively evaluate the clinical value of such models, it is essential to consider factors such as the uncertainty associated with reference annotations, the ability to accurately measure performance regardless of the size of the reference annotation volume, and the classification of cases where reference annotations are empty. We study how uncertain, small, and empty reference annotations influence the value of metrics on a stroke in-house data set regardless of the model. We examine metrics behavior on the predictions of a standard deep learning framework in order to identify suitable metrics in such a setting. We compare our results to the BRATS 2019 and Spinal Cord public data sets. We show how uncertain, small, or empty reference annotations require a rethinking of the evaluation. The evaluation code was released to encourage further analysis of this topic https://github.com/SophieOstmeier/UncertainSmallEmpty.git.

Indexed as

Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImage Processing, Computer-AssistedNeuroimagingAlgorithmsHumansMachine LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingUncertaintyDeep learningDiceIschemic strokeMedical image segmentationMetrics

Identifiers

PMID37672900
PMCPMC11997713

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.