ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Importance of the Quality of Annotation: Impact of Simulated Inter-Observer Variability on Deep Neural Network Automated Segmentation Model Performance.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.