Designing image segmentation studies: Statistical power, sample size and reference standard quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Segmentation algorithms are typically evaluated by comparison to an accepted reference standard. The cost of generating accurate reference standards for medical image segmentation can be substantial. Since the study cost and the likelihood of detecting a clinically meaningful difference in accuracy both depend on the size and on the quality of the study reference standard, balancing these trade-offs supports the efficient use of research resources. In this work, we derive a statistical power calculation that enables researchers to estimate the appropriate sample size to detect clinically meaningful differences in segmentation accuracy (i.e. the proportion of voxels matching the reference standard) between two algorithms. Furthermore, we derive a formula to relate reference standard errors to their effect on the sample sizes of studies using lower-quality (but potentially more affordable and practically available) reference standards. The accuracy of the derived sample size formula was estimated through Monte Carlo simulation, demonstrating, with 95% confidence, a predicted statistical power within 4% of simulated values across a range of model parameters. This corresponds to sample size errors of less than 4 subjects and errors in the detectable accuracy difference less than 0.6%. The applicability of the formula to real-world data was assessed using bootstrap resampling simulations for pairs of algorithms from the PROMISE12 prostate MR segmentation challenge data set. The model predicted the simulated power for the majority of algorithm pairs within 4% for simulated experiments using a high-quality reference standard and within 6% for simulated experiments using a low-quality reference standard. A case study, also based on the PROMISE12 data, illustrates using the formulae to evaluate whether to use a lower-quality reference standard in a prostate segmentation study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.392 | 0.712 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".