
doi: 10.1007/11783237_2
In medical image analysis a ground truth to compare results against is of vital importance. This ground truth is often obtained from human experts. The aim of this paper is to discuss the problem related to the use of markings made by an expert panel. As a partial solution, we propose a method to relate markings to each other in order to establish levels of agreement. By using this method we can assess the performance of, for instance, segmentation algorithms.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 2 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
