Kimberlin Van Wijnen

Where is VALDO? VAscular Lesions Detection and segmentatiOn challenge at MICCAI 2021

By Carole H. Sudre, Kimberlin Van Wijnen, Florian Dubost, Hieab Adams, David Atkinson, Frederik Barkhof, Mahlet A. Birhanu, Esther E. Bron, Robin Camarasa, Nish Chaturvedi, Yuan Chen, Zihao Chen, Shuai Chen, Qi Dou, Tavia Evans, Ivan Ezhov, Haojun Gao, Marta Girones Sanguesa, Juan Domingo Gispert, Beatriz Gomez Anson, Alun D. Hughes, M. Arfan Ikram, Silvia Ingala, H. Rolf Jaeger, Florian Kofler, Hugo J. Kuijf, Denis Kutnar, Minho Lee, Bo Li, Luigi Lorenzini, Bjoern Menze, Jose Luis Molinuevo, Yiwei Pan, Élodie Puybareau, Rafael Rehwald, Ruisheng Su, Pengcheng Shi, Lorna Smith, Therese Tillin, Guillaume Tochon, Hélène Urien, Bas H. M. Velden, Isabelle F. Velpen, Benedikt Wiestler, Frank J. Wolters, Pinar Yilmaz, Marius Groot, Meike W. Vernooij, Marleen Bruijne

2023-11-13

In Medical Image Analysis

Abstract

Imaging markers of cerebral small vessel disease provide valuable information on brain health, but their manual assessment is time-consuming and hampered by substantial intra- and interrater variability. Automated rating may benefit biomedical research, as well as clinical assessment, but diagnostic reliability of existing algorithms is unknown. Here, we present the results of the VAscular Lesions DetectiOn and Segmentation (Where is VALDO?) challenge that was run as a satellite event at the international conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Aided Intervention (MICCAI) 2021. This challenge aimed to promote the development of methods for automated detection and segmentation of small and sparse imaging markers of cerebral small vessel disease, namely enlarged perivascular spaces (EPVS) (Task 1), cerebral microbleeds (Task 2) and lacunes of presumed vascular origin (Task 3) while leveraging weak and noisy labels. Overall, 12 teams participated in the challenge proposing solutions for one or more tasks (4 for Task 1-EPVS, 9 for Task 2-Microbleeds and 6 for Task 3-Lacunes). Multi-cohort data was used in both training and evaluation. Results showed a large variability in performance both across teams and across tasks, with promising results notably for Task 1-EPVS and Task 2-Microbleeds and not practically useful results yet for Task 3-Lacunes. It also highlighted the performance inconsistency across cases that may deter use at an individual level, while still proving useful at a population level.

Continue reading

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

Search

Tags