MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362458848 · doi:10.59275/j.melba.2022-354b

QU-BraTS: MICCAI BraTS 2020 Challenge on Quantifying Uncertainty in Brain Tumor Segmentation – Analysis of Ranking Scores and Benchmarking Results

2022· article· en· W4362458848 on OpenAlexafffund
Raghav Mehta, Angelos Filos, Ujjwal Baid, Chiharu Sako, Richard McKinley, Michael Rebsamen, Katrin Dätwyler, Raphael Meier, Piotr Radojewski, Gowtham Krishnan Murugesan, Sahil Nalawade, Chandan Ganesh, Ben Wagner, Fang Yu, Baowei Fei, Ananth J. Madhuranthakam, Joseph A. Maldjian, Laura Daza, Catalina Gómez, Pablo Arbeláez, Chengliang Dai, Shuo Wang, Hadrien Reynaud, Yuanhan Mo, Elsa D. Angelini, Yike Guo, Wenjia Bai, Subhashis Banerjee, Linmin Pei, Murat Ak, Sarahi Rosas-González, Ilyess Zemmoura, Clovis Tauber, Minh H. Vu, Tufve Nyholm, Tommy Löfstedt, Laura Mora Ballestar, Verónica Vilaplana, Hugh McHugh, Gonzalo D. Maso Talou, Alan Wang, Jay Patel, Ken Chang, Katharina Hoebel, Mishka Gidwani, Nishanth Arun, Sharut Gupta, Mehak Aggarwal, Praveer Singh, Elizabeth R. Gerstner, Jayashree Kalpathy–Cramer, Nicolas Boutry, Alexis Huard, Lasitha Vidyaratne, Md Monibor Rahman, Khan M. Iftekharuddin, Joseph Chazalon, Élodie Puybareau, Guillaume Tochon, Jun Ma, Mariano Cabezas, Xavier Lladó, Arnau Oliver, Liliana Valencia, Sergi Valverde, Mehdi Amian, Mohammadreza Soltaninejad, Andriy Myronenko, Ali Hatamizadeh, Xue Feng, Dou Quan, Nicholas J. Tustison, Craig H. Meyer, Nisarg A. Shah, Sanjay N. Talbar, Marc‐André Weber, Abhishek Mahajan, András Jakab, Roland Wiest, Hassan M. Fathallah‐Shaykh, Arash Nazeri, Mikhail Milchenko, Daniel C. Marcus, Aikaterini Kotrotsou, Rivka R. Colen, John Freymann, Justin Kirby, Christos Davatzikos, Bjoern Menze, Spyridon Bakas, Yarin Gal, Tal Arbel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Machine Learning for Biomedical Imaging · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteMcGill University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteInstituto Tecnológico de Costa RicaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsBenchmarkingSegmentationComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningTask (project management)Ranking (information retrieval)Reliability (semiconductor)Data mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep learning (DL) models have provided state-of-the-art performance in various medical imaging benchmarking challenges, including the Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) challenges. However, the task of focal pathology multi-compartment segmentation (e.g., tumor and lesion sub-regions) is particularly challenging, and potential errors hinder translating DL models into clinical workflows. Quantifying the reliability of DL model predictions in the form of uncertainties could enable clinical review of the most uncertain regions, thereby building trust and paving the way toward clinical translation. Several uncertainty estimation methods have recently been introduced for DL medical image segmentation tasks. Developing scores to evaluate and compare the performance of uncertainty measures will assist the end-user in making more informed decisions. In this study, we explore and evaluate a score developed during the BraTS 2019 and BraTS 2020 task on uncertainty quantification (QU-BraTS) and designed to assess and rank uncertainty estimates for brain tumor multi-compartment segmentation. This score (1) rewards uncertainty estimates that produce high confidence in correct assertions and those that assign low confidence levels at incorrect assertions, and (2) penalizes uncertainty measures that lead to a higher percentage of under-confident correct assertions. We further benchmark the segmentation uncertainties generated by 14 independent participating teams of QU-BraTS 2020, all of which also participated in the main BraTS segmentation task. Overall, our findings confirm the importance and complementary value that uncertainty estimates provide to segmentation algorithms, highlighting the need for uncertainty quantification in medical image analyses. Finally, in favor of transparency and reproducibility, our evaluation code is made publicly available at https://github.com/RagMeh11/QU-BraTS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Machine Learning for Biomedical ImagingSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207