D-LEMA: Deep Learning Ensembles from Multiple Annotations - Application to Skin Lesion Segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical image segmentation annotations suffer from inter- and intra-observer variations even among experts due to intrinsic differences in human annotators and ambiguous boundaries. Leveraging a collection of annotators’ opinions for an image is an interesting way of estimating a gold standard. Although training deep models in a supervised setting with a single annotation per image has been extensively studied, generalizing their training to work with datasets containing multiple annotations per image remains a fairly unexplored problem. In this paper, we propose an approach to handle annotators’ disagreements when training a deep model. To this end, we propose an ensemble of Bayesian fully convolutional networks (FCNs) for the segmentation task by considering two major factors in the aggregation of multiple ground truth annotations: (1) handling contradictory annotations in the training data originating from inter-annotator disagreements and (2) improving confidence calibration through the fusion of base models’ predictions. We demonstrate the superior performance of our approach on the ISIC Archive and explore the generalization performance of our proposed method by cross-dataset evaluation on the PH2and DermoFit datasets.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".