Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38963923›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Gamified Crowdsourcing as a Novel Approach to Lung Ultrasound Data Set Labeling: Prospective Analysis.

Nicole M Duggan, Mike Jin, Maria Alejandra Duran Mendicuti, Stephen Hallisey, Denie Bernier, Lauren A Selame, Ameneh Asgari-Targhi, Chanel E Fischetti, Ruben Lucassen, Anthony E Samir and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. AI-Enhanced POCUS in Emergency Care.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Can Crowdsourced Annotations Improve AI-based Congestion Scoring For Bedside Lung Ultrasound?Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention : MICCAI ... International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
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

13 authors.

Nicole M Duggan *Department of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4829-4979
Mike Jin *Department of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7237-6697
Maria Alejandra Duran MendicutiDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0009-0002-8450-8882
Stephen HalliseyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0009-0004-1479-7601
Denie BernierDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1874-2817
Lauren A SelameDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9098-3861
Ameneh Asgari-TarghiDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1971-3962
Chanel E FischettiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5959-5614
Ruben LucassenDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5760-9568
Anthony E SamirDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7801-8724
Erik DuhaimeCentaur Labs, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8026-4206
Tina Kapur *Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3646-9508
Andrew J Goldsmith *Department of Emergency Medicine, Lahey Hospital, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Burlington, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0979-7178

Funding

Deep Learning Assisted Scoring of Point of Care Lung Ultrasound for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure in the Emergency DepartmentR21EB034075 · NIBIB · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI GOLDSMITH, ANDREW, KAPUR, TINA · 2023 to 2024
$716k
NIBIB NIH HHS R21 EB034075
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine learning (ML) models can yield faster and more accurate medical diagnoses; however, developing ML models is limited by a lack of high-quality labeled training data. Crowdsourced labeling is a potential solution but can be constrained by concerns about label quality.

objectiveThis study aims to examine whether a gamified crowdsourcing platform with continuous performance assessment, user feedback, and performance-based incentives could produce expert-quality labels on medical imaging data.

methodsIn this diagnostic comparison study, 2384 lung ultrasound clips were retrospectively collected from 203 emergency department patients. A total of 6 lung ultrasound experts classified 393 of these clips as having no B-lines, one or more discrete B-lines, or confluent B-lines to create 2 sets of reference standard data sets (195 training clips and 198 test clips). Sets were respectively used to (1) train users on a gamified crowdsourcing platform and (2) compare the concordance of the resulting crowd labels to the concordance of individual experts to reference standards. Crowd opinions were sourced from DiagnosUs (Centaur Labs) iOS app users over 8 days, filtered based on past performance, aggregated using majority rule, and analyzed for label concordance compared with a hold-out test set of expert-labeled clips. The primary outcome was comparing the labeling concordance of collated crowd opinions to trained experts in classifying B-lines on lung ultrasound clips.

resultsOur clinical data set included patients with a mean age of 60.0 (SD 19.0) years; 105 (51.7%) patients were female and 114 (56.1%) patients were White. Over the 195 training clips, the expert-consensus label distribution was 114 (58%) no B-lines, 56 (29%) discrete B-lines, and 25 (13%) confluent B-lines. Over the 198 test clips, expert-consensus label distribution was 138 (70%) no B-lines, 36 (18%) discrete B-lines, and 24 (12%) confluent B-lines. In total, 99,238 opinions were collected from 426 unique users. On a test set of 198 clips, the mean labeling concordance of individual experts relative to the reference standard was 85.0% (SE 2.0), compared with 87.9% crowdsourced label concordance (P=.15). When individual experts' opinions were compared with reference standard labels created by majority vote excluding their own opinion, crowd concordance was higher than the mean concordance of individual experts to reference standards (87.4% vs 80.8%, SE 1.6 for expert concordance; P<.001). Clips with discrete B-lines had the most disagreement from both the crowd consensus and individual experts with the expert consensus. Using randomly sampled subsets of crowd opinions, 7 quality-filtered opinions were sufficient to achieve near the maximum crowd concordance.

conclusionsCrowdsourced labels for B-line classification on lung ultrasound clips via a gamified approach achieved expert-level accuracy. This suggests a strategic role for gamified crowdsourcing in efficiently generating labeled image data sets for training ML systems.

Indexed as

CrowdsourcingLungUltrasonographyAdultFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRetrospective Studiesartificial intelligenceB-linesclassificationcrowdsourcecrowdsourcedcrowdsourcingdata sciencediagnosediagnosisdiagnosticgamificationgamifiedgamifyimaginglabellabelinglabelslunglung ultrasoundmachine learningmedical imagePOCUSpoint-of-care ultrasoundpulmonaryrespiratoryultrasound

Identifiers

PMID38963923
PMCPMC11258523

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.