Crowd disagreement about medical images is informative
June 21, 2018 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐ CVII-STENT/LABELS@MICCAI
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Veronika Cheplygina, Josien P. W. Pluim
arXiv ID
1806.08174
Category
cs.CV: Computer Vision
Citations
26
Venue
CVII-STENT/LABELS@MICCAI
Last Checked
3 months ago
Abstract
Classifiers for medical image analysis are often trained with a single consensus label, based on combining labels given by experts or crowds. However, disagreement between annotators may be informative, and thus removing it may not be the best strategy. As a proof of concept, we predict whether a skin lesion from the ISIC 2017 dataset is a melanoma or not, based on crowd annotations of visual characteristics of that lesion. We compare using the mean annotations, illustrating consensus, to standard deviations and other distribution moments, illustrating disagreement. We show that the mean annotations perform best, but that the disagreement measures are still informative. We also make the crowd annotations used in this paper available at \url{https://figshare.com/s/5cbbce14647b66286544}.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
๐ Similar Papers
In the same crypt โ Computer Vision
๐
๐
Old Age
๐
๐
Old Age
Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
You Only Look Once: Unified, Real-Time Object Detection
๐
๐
Old Age
SSD: Single Shot MultiBox Detector
๐
๐
Old Age
Squeeze-and-Excitation Networks
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision
Died the same way โ ๐ป Ghosted
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted