ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2025
Semantic segmentation dataset authoring with simplified labels.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2025. 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.
- Semantic segmentation dataset authoring with simplified labels.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSemantic segmentation of laparoscopic images is a key problem in surgical scene understanding. Creating ground truth labels for semantic segmentation tasks is time consuming, and in the medical field a need for medical training of annotators adds further complications, leading to reliance on a small pool of experts. Previous research has focused on reducing the time to author datasets, by using spatially weak labels, pseudolabels, and synthetic data. In this paper, we address the difficulties caused by the need for medically trained annotators, hoping to enable non-medical annotators to participate in medical annotation tasks, to ease the creation of large datasets.
methodsWe propose simplified labels, labels that are semantically weak. Our labels allow non-medical annotators to participate in medical dataset authoring, by lowering the need for medical expertise. We simulate authoring processes with mixtures of medical and non-medical annotators and measure the impact adding non-medical annotators has on accuracy. We also show that simplified labels offer a simple formulation for multi-dataset training.
resultsWe show that simplified labels are a viable approach to dataset authoring. Including non-medical annotators in the authoring process is beneficial, but medically trained annotators are worth multiple non-medical annotators, with maximal Dice score increases of 9.3% for 1 medically trained annotator and 6.9% for 3 non-medical annotators. We also show that the labels offer a simple formulation for multi-dataset training, even with no overlapping classes. We find that converting the labels of a secondary incompatible dataset into simplified labels and jointly training on both datasets improves performance.
conclusionSimplified labels offer a framework that can be applied both to dataset authoring and to multi-dataset training. Using the proposed method, non-medical annotators can participate in semantic segmentation dataset authoring. Labels of incompatible datasets can be converted into simplified datasets, enabling multi-dataset training.
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.