Multi-Centre, Multi-Vendor and Multi-Disease Cardiac Segmentation: The M&Ms Challenge
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of deep learning has considerably advanced the state-of-the-art in cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) segmentation. Many techniques have been proposed over the last few years, bringing the accuracy of automated segmentation close to human performance. However, these models have been all too often trained and validated using cardiac imaging samples from single clinical centres or homogeneous imaging protocols. This has prevented the development and validation of models that are generalizable across different clinical centres, imaging conditions or scanner vendors. To promote further research and scientific benchmarking in the field of generalizable deep learning for cardiac segmentation, this paper presents the results of the Multi-Centre, Multi-Vendor and Multi-Disease Cardiac Segmentation (M&Ms) Challenge, which was recently organized as part of the MICCAI 2020 Conference. A total of 14 teams submitted different solutions to the problem, combining various baseline models, data augmentation strategies, and domain adaptation techniques. The obtained results indicate the importance of intensity-driven data augmentation, as well as the need for further research to improve generalizability towards unseen scanner vendors or new imaging protocols. Furthermore, we present a new resource of 375 heterogeneous CMR datasets acquired by using four different scanner vendors in six hospitals and three different countries (Spain, Canada and Germany), which we provide as open-access for the community to enable future research in the field.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it