Multiple sclerosis lesions segmentation from multiple experts: The MICCAI 2016 challenge dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MRI plays a crucial role in multiple sclerosis diagnostic and patient follow-up. In particular, the delineation of T2-FLAIR hyperintense lesions is crucial although mostly performed manually - a tedious task. Many methods have thus been proposed to automate this task. However, sufficiently large datasets with a thorough expert manual segmentation are still lacking to evaluate these methods. We present a unique dataset for MS lesions segmentation evaluation. It consists of 53 patients acquired on 4 different scanners with a harmonized protocol. Hyperintense lesions on FLAIR were manually delineated on each patient by 7 experts with control on T2 sequence, and gathered in a consensus segmentation for evaluation. We provide raw and preprocessed data and a split of the dataset into training and testing data, the latter including data from a scanner not present in the training dataset. We strongly believe that this dataset will become a reference in MS lesions segmentation evaluation, allowing to evaluate many aspects: evaluation of performance on unseen scanner, comparison to individual experts performance, comparison to other challengers who already used this dataset, etc.
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 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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".