ArticleJournal of imaging2024
Reducing Manual Annotation Costs for Cell Segmentation by Upgrading Low-Quality Annotations.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- PromptSTG: prototype-guided prompting for few-shot spatial transcriptomics annotation.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Comparing Interactive Machine Learning and Unassisted Segmentation of Geographic Atrophy From Fundus Autofluorescence.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Semantic Explanation for Malaria Diagnosis: Comparing Human and Machine Generated Annotations forIEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep-learning algorithms for cell segmentation typically require large data sets with high-quality annotations to be trained with. However, the annotation cost for obtaining such sets may prove to be prohibitively expensive. Our work aims to reduce the time necessary to create high-quality annotations of cell images by using a relatively small well-annotated data set for training a convolutional neural network to upgrade lower-quality annotations, produced at lower annotation costs. We investigate the performance of our solution when upgrading the annotation quality for labels affected by three types of annotation error: omission, inclusion, and bias. We observe that our method can upgrade annotations affected by high error levels from 0.3 to 0.9 Dice similarity with the ground-truth annotations. We also show that a relatively small well-annotated set enlarged with samples with upgraded annotations can be used to train better-performing cell segmentation networks compared to training only on the well-annotated set. Moreover, we present a use case where our solution can be successfully employed to increase the quality of the predictions of a segmentation network trained on just 10 annotated samples.
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.