Jun Ma

Why is the winner the best?

By Matthias Eisenmann, Annika Reinke, Vivienn Weru, Minu D. Tizabi, Fabian Isensee, Tim J. Adler, Sharib Ali, Vincent Andrearczyk, Marc Aubreville, Ujjwal Baid, Spyridon Bakas, Niranjan Balu, Sophia Bano, Jorge Bernal, Sebastian Bodenstedt, Alessandro Casella, Veronika Cheplygina, Marie Daum, Marleen de Bruijne, Adrien Depeursinge, Reuben Dorent, Jan Egger, David G. Ellis, Sandy Engelhardt, Melanie Ganz, Noha Ghatwary, Gabriel Girard, Patrick Godau, Anubha Gupta, Lasse Hansen, Kanako Harada, Mattias P. Heinrich, Nicholas Heller, Alessa Hering, Arnaud Huaulmé, Pierre Jannin, Ali Emre Kavur, Oldřich Kodym, Michal Kozubek, Jianning Li, Hongwei Li, Jun Ma, Carlos Martı́n-Isla, Bjoern Menze, Alison Noble, Valentin Oreiller, Nicolas Padoy, Sarthak Pati, Kelly Payette, Tim Rädsch, Jonathan Rafael-Patiño, Vivek Singh Bawa, Stefanie Speidel, Carole H. Sudre, Kimberlin van Wijnen, Martin Wagner, Donglai Wei, Amine Yamlahi, Moi Hoon Yap, Chun Yuan, Maximilian Zenk, Aneeq Zia, David Zimmerer, Dogu Baran Aydogan, Binod Bhattarai, Louise Bloch, Raphael Brüngel, Jihoon Cho, Chanyeol Choi, Qi Dou, Ivan Ezhov, Christoph M. Friedrich, Clifton D. Fuller, Rebati Raman Gaire, Adrian Galdran, Álvaro Garcı́a Faura, Maria Grammatikopoulou, SeulGi Hong, Mostafa Jahanifar, Ikbeom Jang, Abdolrahim Kadkhodamohammadi, Inha Kang, Florian Kofler, Satoshi Kondo, Hugo Kuijf, Mingxing Li, Minh Luu, Tomaž Martinčič, Pedro Morais, Mohamed A. Naser, Bruno Oliveira, David Owen, Subeen Pang, Jinah Park, Sung-Hong Park, Szymon Plotka, Élodie Puybareau, Nasir Rajpoot, Kanghyun Ryu, Numan Saeed, Adam Shephard, Pengcheng Shi, Dejan Štepec, Ronast Subedi, Guillaume Tochon, Helena R. Torres, Helene Urien, João L. Vilaça, Kareem A. Wahid, Haojie Wang, Jiacheng Wang, Liansheng Wang, Xiyue Wang, Benedikt Wiestler, Marek Wodzinski, Fangfang Xia, Juanying Xie, Zhiwei Xiong, Sen Yang, Yanwu Yang, Zixuan Zhao, Klaus Maier-Hein, Paul F. Jäger, Annette Kopp-Schneider, Lena Maier-Hein

2023-02-27

In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR)

Abstract

International benchmarking competitions have become fundamental for the comparative performance assessment of image analysis methods. However, little attention has been given to investigating what can be learnt from these competitions. Do they really generate scientific progress? What are common and successful participation strategies? What makes a solution superior to a competing method? To address this gap in the literature, we performed a multi-center study with all 80 competitions that were conducted in the scope of IEEE ISBI 2021 and MICCAI 2021. Statistical analyses performed based on comprehensive descriptions of the submitted algorithms linked to their rank as well as the underlying participation strategies revealed common characteristics of winning solutions. These typically include the use of multi-task learning (63%) and/or multi-stage pipelines (61%), and a focus on augmentation (100%), image preprocessing (97%), data curation (79%), and postprocessing (66%). The “typical” lead of a winning team is a computer scientist with a doctoral degree, five years of experience in biomedical image analysis, and four years of experience in deep learning. Two core general development strategies stood out for highly-ranked teams: the reflection of the metrics in the method design and the focus on analyzing and handling failure cases. According to the organizers, 43% of the winning algorithms exceeded the state of the art but only 11% completely solved the respective domain problem. The insights of our study could help researchers (1) improve algorithm development strategies when approaching new problems, and (2) focus on open research questions revealed by this work.

Continue reading

QU-BraTS: MICCAI BraTS 2020 challenge on quantifying uncertainty in brain tumor segmentation — Analysis of ranking scores and benchmarking results

By 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 F. Yu, Baowei Fei, Ananth J. Madhuranthakam, Joseph A. Maldjian, Laura Daza, Catalina Gómez, Pablo Arbeláez, Chengliang Dai, Shuo Wang, Hadrien Reynaud, Yuanhan Mo, Elsa Angelini, Yike Guo, Wenjia Bai, Subhashis Banerjee, Linmin Pei, Murat AK, Sarahi Rosas-González, Ilyess Zemmoura, Clovis Tauber, Minh Hoang Vu, Tufve Nyholm, Tommy Löfstedt, Laura Mora Ballestar, Veronica Vilaplana, Hugh McHugh, Gonzalo 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 Llado, Arnau Oliver, Liliana Valencia, Sergi Valverde, Mehdi Amian, Mohammadreza Soltaninejad, Andriy Myronenko, Ali Hatamizadeh, Xue Feng, Quan Dou, Nicholas Tustison, Craig Meyer, Nisarg A. Shah, Sanjay Talbar, Marc-André Weber, Abhishek Mahajan, Andras Jakab, Roland Wiest, Hassan M. Fathallah-Shaykh, Arash Nazeri, Mikhail Milchenko, Daniel Marcus, Aikaterini Kotrotsou, Rivka Colen, John Freymann, Justin Kirby, Christos Davatzikos, Bjoern Menze, Spyridon Bakas, Yarin Gal, Tal Arbel

2022-01-09

In Journal of Machine Learning for Biomedical Imaging (MELBA)

Abstract

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.

Continue reading

Search

Tags