Author’s Reply to “MoNuSAC2020: A Multi-Organ Nuclei Segmentation and Classification Challenge”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We had released MoNuSAC2020 as one of the largest publicly available, manually annotated, curated, multi-class, and multi-instance medical image segmentation datasets. Based on this dataset, we had organized a challenge at the International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) 2020. Along with the challenge participants, we had published an article summarizing the results and findings of the challenge (Verma et al., 2021). Foucart et al. (2022) in their "Analysis of the MoNuSAC 2020 challenge evaluation and results: metric implementation errors" have pointed ways in which the computation of the segmentation performance metric for the challenge can be corrected or improved. After a careful examination of their analysis, we have found a small bug in our code and an erroneous column-header swap in one of our result tables. Here, we present our response to their analysis, and issue an errata. After fixing the bug the challenge rankings remain largely unaffected. On the other hand, two of Foucart et al.'s other suggestions are good for future consideration, but it is not clear that those should be immediately implemented. We thank Foucart et al. for their detailed analysis to help us fix the two errors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".