Downloads provided by UsageCounts
doi: 10.1186/s13104-022-06096-y , 10.48550/arxiv.2202.05273 , 10.5281/zenodo.5877796 , 10.5281/zenodo.5877797
pmid: 35725483
pmc: PMC9208116
arXiv: 2202.05273
doi: 10.1186/s13104-022-06096-y , 10.48550/arxiv.2202.05273 , 10.5281/zenodo.5877796 , 10.5281/zenodo.5877797
pmid: 35725483
pmc: PMC9208116
arXiv: 2202.05273
AbstractIn the last decade, research on artificial intelligence has seen rapid growth with deep learning models, especially in the field of medical image segmentation. Various studies demonstrated that these models have powerful prediction capabilities and achieved similar results as clinicians. However, recent studies revealed that the evaluation in image segmentation studies lacks reliable model performance assessment and showed statistical bias by incorrect metric implementation or usage. Thus, this work provides an overview and interpretation guide on the following metrics for medical image segmentation evaluation in binary as well as multi-class problems: Dice similarity coefficient, Jaccard, Sensitivity, Specificity, Rand index, ROC curves, Cohen’s Kappa, and Hausdorff distance. Furthermore, common issues like class imbalance and statistical as well as interpretation biases in evaluation are discussed. As a summary, we propose a guideline for standardized medical image segmentation evaluation to improve evaluation quality, reproducibility, and comparability in the research field.
ddc:004, FOS: Computer and information sciences, Computer Science - Machine Learning, Science (General), QH301-705.5, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV), Computer Science - Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Guideline, Biomedical image segmentation, Machine Learning (cs.LG), Q1-390, Performance assessment, Artificial Intelligence, Medical image analysis, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, FOS: Electrical engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering, Biology (General), Evaluation, Image and Video Processing (eess.IV), R, Reproducibility of Results, Electrical Engineering and Systems Science - Image and Video Processing, Semantic segmentation, Reproducibility, Benchmarking, ROC Curve, Commentary, Medicine, Algorithms, Biomedical image segmentation; Semantic segmentation; Medical Image Analysis
ddc:004, FOS: Computer and information sciences, Computer Science - Machine Learning, Science (General), QH301-705.5, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV), Computer Science - Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Guideline, Biomedical image segmentation, Machine Learning (cs.LG), Q1-390, Performance assessment, Artificial Intelligence, Medical image analysis, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, FOS: Electrical engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering, Biology (General), Evaluation, Image and Video Processing (eess.IV), R, Reproducibility of Results, Electrical Engineering and Systems Science - Image and Video Processing, Semantic segmentation, Reproducibility, Benchmarking, ROC Curve, Commentary, Medicine, Algorithms, Biomedical image segmentation; Semantic segmentation; Medical Image Analysis
| 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). | 589 | |
| 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. | Top 0.1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 0.01% |
| views | 25 | |
| downloads | 36 |

Views provided by UsageCounts
Downloads provided by UsageCounts