Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42351935›Full record

ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Importance of the Quality of Annotation: Impact of Simulated Inter-Observer Variability on Deep Neural Network Automated Segmentation Model Performance.

Dominic LaBella, Michaela Kop, Xuan Qi, Hunter Stecko, Baris Turkbey, Hannah Scanlon, Thomas Sanford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Dominic LaBellaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27705, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1713-9538
Michaela KopJohn A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96813, USA.
Xuan QiNational Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.ORCID 0009-0002-9599-9066
Hunter SteckoNational Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
Baris TurkbeyNational Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
Hannah ScanlonDepartment of Mathematics, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2045-2277
Thomas SanfordKonahuanui Urology, Phoenix, AZ 85016, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDeep neural network based prostate segmentation depends on manual annotations, yet the effect of annotation variability on model performance remains underexplored.

methodsProstate contours were manually delineated by an expert clinician on 119 T2-weighted MR images from the PROSTATEx Challenge 2017 training dataset, and slice-wise synthetic radial modifications of 1-10 mm were applied to create 10 modified training datasets plus an unmodified baseline. Identical SegResNet models were trained with Auto3DSeg/MONAI and evaluated against unmodified validation and test sets using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC).

resultsMean test DSC decreased from 0.917 for the baseline model to 0.856 at 10 mm modification. Models trained with small annotation perturbations of 1-5 mm maintained DSC values of at least 0.90, whereas performance declined significantly beyond 5 mm. Pairwise DSC agreement across modified annotations also fell as modification amplitude increased.

conclusionsProstate segmentation models tolerated modest annotation variability but degraded substantially when variability exceeded 5 mm, underscoring the importance of annotation quality when training and benchmarking DNN-based automated segmentation models.

Indexed as

automated segmentationdeep neural networkinter-observer variabilityMRIprostate

Identifiers

PMID42351935
PMCPMC13295574

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.