Paper detail

Calibrate the inter-observer segmentation uncertainty via diagnosis-first principle

On the medical images, many of the tissues/lesions may be ambiguous. That is why the medical segmentation is typically annotated by a group of clinical experts to mitigate the personal bias. However, this clinical routine also brings new challenges to the application of machine learning algorithms. Without a definite ground-truth, it will be difficult to train and evaluate the deep learning models. When the annotations are collected from different graders, a common choice is majority vote. However such a strategy ignores the difference between the grader expertness. In this paper, we consider the task of predicting the segmentation with the calibrated inter-observer uncertainty. We note that in clinical practice, the medical image segmentation is usually used to assist the disease diagnosis. Inspired by this observation, we propose diagnosis-first principle, which is to take disease diagnosis as the criterion to calibrate the inter-observer segmentation uncertainty. Following this idea, a framework named Diagnosis First segmentation Framework (DiFF) is proposed to estimate diagnosis-first segmentation from the raw images.Specifically, DiFF will first learn to fuse the multi-rater segmentation labels to a single ground-truth which could maximize the disease diagnosis performance. We dubbed the fused ground-truth as Diagnosis First Ground-truth (DF-GT).Then, we further propose Take and Give Modelto segment DF-GT from the raw image. We verify the effectiveness of DiFF on three different medical segmentation tasks: OD/OC segmentation on fundus images, thyroid nodule segmentation on ultrasound images, and skin lesion segmentation on dermoscopic images. Experimental results show that the proposed DiFF is able to significantly facilitate the corresponding disease diagnosis, which outperforms previous state-of-the-art multi-rater learning methods.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.