Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2021
The International Workshop on Osteoarthritis Imaging Knee MRI Segmentation Challenge: A Multi-Institute Evaluation and Analysis Framework on a Standardized Dataset.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Desai Arjun D, Caliva Francesco, Iriondo Claudia, Mortazi Aliasghar, Jambawalikar Sachin, Bagci Ulas, Perslev Mathias, Igel Christian, Dam Erik B, Gaj Sibaji, Yang Mingrui, Li Xiaojuan, Deniz Cem M, Juras Vladimir, Regatte Ravinder, Gold Garry E, Hargreaves Brian A, Pedoia Valentina, Chaudhari Akshay S, IWOAI Segmentation Challenge Writing Group
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To organize a multi-institute knee MRI segmentation challenge for characterizing the semantic and clinical efficacy of automatic segmentation methods relevant for monitoring osteoarthritis progression.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A dataset partition consisting of three-dimensional knee MRI from 88 retrospective patients at two time points (baseline and 1-year follow-up) with ground truth articular (femoral, tibial, and patellar) cartilage and meniscus segmentations was standardized. Challenge submissions and a majority-vote ensemble were evaluated against ground truth segmentations using Dice score, average symmetric surface distance, volumetric overlap error, and coefficient of variation on a holdout test set. Similarities in automated segmentations were measured using pairwise Dice coefficient correlations. Articular cartilage thickness was computed longitudinally and with scans. Correlation between thickness error and segmentation metrics was measured using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Two empirical upper bounds for ensemble performance were computed using combinations of model outputs that consolidated true positives and true negatives.
RESULTS: Six teams (T 1-T 6) submitted entries for the challenge. No differences were observed across any segmentation metrics for any tissues (P = .99) among the four top-performing networks (T 2, T 3, T 4, T 6). Dice coefficient correlations between network pairs were high (> 0.85). Per-scan thickness errors were negligible among networks T 1-T 4 (P = .99), and longitudinal changes showed minimal bias (< 0.03 mm). Low correlations (ρ < 0.41) were observed between segmentation metrics and thickness error. The majority-vote ensemble was comparable to top-performing networks (P = .99). Empirical upper-bound performances were similar for both combinations (P = .99).
CONCLUSION: Diverse networks learned to segment the knee similarly, where high segmentation accuracy did not correlate with cartilage thickness accuracy and voting ensembles did not exceed individual network performance.See also the commentary by Elhalawani and Mak in this issue.Keywords: Cartilage, Knee, MR-Imaging, Segmentation © RSNA, 2020Supplemental material is available for this article.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A dataset partition consisting of three-dimensional knee MRI from 88 retrospective patients at two time points (baseline and 1-year follow-up) with ground truth articular (femoral, tibial, and patellar) cartilage and meniscus segmentations was standardized. Challenge submissions and a majority-vote ensemble were evaluated against ground truth segmentations using Dice score, average symmetric surface distance, volumetric overlap error, and coefficient of variation on a holdout test set. Similarities in automated segmentations were measured using pairwise Dice coefficient correlations. Articular cartilage thickness was computed longitudinally and with scans. Correlation between thickness error and segmentation metrics was measured using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Two empirical upper bounds for ensemble performance were computed using combinations of model outputs that consolidated true positives and true negatives.
RESULTS: Six teams (T 1-T 6) submitted entries for the challenge. No differences were observed across any segmentation metrics for any tissues (P = .99) among the four top-performing networks (T 2, T 3, T 4, T 6). Dice coefficient correlations between network pairs were high (> 0.85). Per-scan thickness errors were negligible among networks T 1-T 4 (P = .99), and longitudinal changes showed minimal bias (< 0.03 mm). Low correlations (ρ < 0.41) were observed between segmentation metrics and thickness error. The majority-vote ensemble was comparable to top-performing networks (P = .99). Empirical upper-bound performances were similar for both combinations (P = .99).
CONCLUSION: Diverse networks learned to segment the knee similarly, where high segmentation accuracy did not correlate with cartilage thickness accuracy and voting ensembles did not exceed individual network performance.See also the commentary by Elhalawani and Mak in this issue.Keywords: Cartilage, Knee, MR-Imaging, Segmentation © RSNA, 2020Supplemental material is available for this article.