Unleashing the strengths of unlabelled data in deep learning-assisted pan-cancer abdominal organ quantification: the FLARE22 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
Deep learning has shown great potential to automate abdominal organ segmentation and quantification. However, most existing algorithms rely on expert annotations and do not have comprehensive evaluations in real-world multinational settings. To address these limitations, we organised the FLARE 2022 challenge to benchmark fast, low-resource, and accurate abdominal organ segmentation algorithms. We first constructed an intercontinental abdomen CT dataset from more than 50 clinical research groups. We then independently validated that deep learning algorithms achieved a median dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of 90·0% (IQR 87·4-91·3%) by use of 50 labelled images and 2000 unlabelled images, which can substantially reduce manual annotation costs. The best-performing algorithms successfully generalised to holdout external validation sets, achieving a median DSC of 89·4% (85·2-91·3%), 90·0% (84·3-93·0%), and 88·5% (80·9-91·9%) on North American, European, and Asian cohorts, respectively. These algorithms show the potential to use unlabelled data to boost performance and alleviate annotation shortages for modern artificial intelligence models.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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