A121 QUANTIFYING INTER-OBSERVER VARIABILITY IN THE SEGMENTATION OF RECTAL TUMORS IN ENDOSCOPY IMAGES AND ITS EFFECTS ON DEEP LEARNING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Tumor delineation in endoscopy images is a crucial part of clinical diagnoses and treatment planning for rectal cancer patients. However, it is challenging to detect and adequately determine the size of tumors in these images, especially for inexperienced clinicians. This motivates the need for a standardized, automated segmentation method. While deep learning has proven to be a powerful tool for medical image segmentation, it requires a large quantity of high-quality annotated training data. Since the annotation of endoscopy images is prone to high inter-observer variability, creating a robust unbiased deep learning model for this task is challenging. Aims To quantify the inter-observer variability in the manual segmentation of tumors in endoscopy images of rectal cancer patients and investigate an automated approach using deep learning. Methods Three gastrointestinal physicians and radiation oncologists (G1, G2, and G3) segmented 2833 endoscopy images into tumor and non-tumor regions. The whole image classifications and the pixelwise classifications into tumor and non-tumor were compared to quantify the inter-observer variability. Each manual annotator is from a different institution. Three different deep learning architectures (FCN32, U-Net, and SegNet) were trained on the binary contours created by G2. This naive approach investigates the effectiveness of neglecting any information about the uncertainty associated with the task of tumor delineation. Finally, segmentations from G2 and the deep learning models’ predictions were compared against ground truth labels from G1 and G3, and accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F1 scores were computed for images where both segmentations contained tumors. Results The deep-learning segmentation took less than 1 second, while manual segmentation took approximately 10 seconds per image. There was significant inter-observer variability for the whole-image classifications made by the manual annotators (Figure 1A). The segmentation scores achieved by the deep learning models (SegNet F1:0.80±0.08) were comparable to the inter-observer variability for the pixel-wise image classification (Figure 1B). Conclusions The large inter-observer variability observed in this study indicates a need for an automated segmentation tool for tumors in endoscopy images of rectal cancer patients. While deep learning models trained on a single observer’s labels can segment tumors with an accuracy similar to the inter-observer variability, these models do not accurately reflect the intrinsic uncertainty associated with tumor delineation. In our ongoing studies, we investigate training a model with all observers’ contours to reflect the uncertainty associated with the tumor segmentations. Funding Agencies CIHRNSERC
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 | 0.010 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".