Agreement Between Experts and an Untrained Crowd for Identifying Dermoscopic Features Using a Gamified App: Reader Feasibility Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Dermoscopy is commonly used for the evaluation of pigmented lesions, but agreement between experts for identification of dermoscopic structures is known to be relatively poor. Expert labeling of medical data is a bottleneck in the development of machine learning (ML) tools, and crowdsourcing has been demonstrated as a cost- and time-efficient method for the annotation of medical images. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to demonstrate that crowdsourcing can be used to label basic dermoscopic structures from images of pigmented lesions with similar reliability to a group of experts. METHODS: First, we obtained labels of 248 images of melanocytic lesions with 31 dermoscopic "subfeatures" labeled by 20 dermoscopy experts. These were then collapsed into 6 dermoscopic "superfeatures" based on structural similarity, due to low interrater reliability (IRR): dots, globules, lines, network structures, regression structures, and vessels. These images were then used as the gold standard for the crowd study. The commercial platform DiagnosUs was used to obtain annotations from a nonexpert crowd for the presence or absence of the 6 superfeatures in each of the 248 images. We replicated this methodology with a group of 7 dermatologists to allow direct comparison with the nonexpert crowd. The Cohen κ value was used to measure agreement across raters. RESULTS: In total, we obtained 139,731 ratings of the 6 dermoscopic superfeatures from the crowd. There was relatively lower agreement for the identification of dots and globules (the median κ values were 0.526 and 0.395, respectively), whereas network structures and vessels showed the highest agreement (the median κ values were 0.581 and 0.798, respectively). This pattern was also seen among the expert raters, who had median κ values of 0.483 and 0.517 for dots and globules, respectively, and 0.758 and 0.790 for network structures and vessels. The median κ values between nonexperts and thresholded average-expert readers were 0.709 for dots, 0.719 for globules, 0.714 for lines, 0.838 for network structures, 0.818 for regression structures, and 0.728 for vessels. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that IRR for different dermoscopic features varied among a group of experts; a similar pattern was observed in a nonexpert crowd. There was good or excellent agreement for each of the 6 superfeatures between the crowd and the experts, highlighting the similar reliability of the crowd for labeling dermoscopic images. This confirms the feasibility and dependability of using crowdsourcing as a scalable solution to annotate large sets of dermoscopic images, with several potential clinical and educational applications, including the development of novel, explainable ML tools.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,038 | 0,101 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».