Paper detail

The Worrisome Impact of an Inter-rater Bias on Neural Network Training

The problem of inter-rater variability is often discussed in the context of manual labeling of medical images. The emergence of data-driven approaches such as Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) brought this issue of raters' disagreement to the front-stage. In this paper, we highlight the issue of inter-rater bias as opposed to random inter-observer variability and demonstrate its influence on DNN training, leading to different segmentation results for the same input images. In fact, lower overlap scores are obtained between the outputs of a DNN trained on annotations of one rater and tested on another. Moreover, we demonstrate that inter-rater bias in the training examples is amplified and becomes more consistent, considering the segmentation predictions of the DNNs' test data. We support our findings by showing that a classifier-DNN trained to distinguish between raters based on their manual annotations performs better when the automatic segmentation predictions rather than the actual raters' annotations were tested. For this study, we used two different datasets: the ISBI 2015 Multiple Sclerosis (MS) challenge dataset, including MRI scans each with annotations provided by two raters with different levels of expertise; and Intracerebral Hemorrhage (ICH) CT scans with manual and semi-manual segmentations. The results obtained allow us to underline a worrisome clinical implication of a DNN bias induced by an inter-rater bias during training. Specifically, we present a consistent underestimate of MS-lesion loads when calculated from segmentation predictions of a DNN trained on input provided by the less experienced rater. In the same manner, the differences in ICH volumes calculated based on outputs of identical DNNs, each trained on annotations from a different source are more consistent and larger than the differences in volumes between the manual and semi-manual annotations used for training.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 topics

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 map preview

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.