检索结果-内蒙古大学图书馆

SSRN 2024年

作者： Hopper, John L. Nguyen, Tuong Linh Elliott, Michael S. Al-Qershi, Osamah Schmidt, Daniel F. Makalic, Enes Li, Shuai Fox, Samantha K. Dowty, James G. Peña-Solorzano, Carlos Andres Kwok, Chun Fung Chen, Yuanhong Wang, Chong Lippey, Jocelyn F. Brotchie, Peter Carneiro, Gustavo McCarthy, Davis J. Frazer, Helen M.L. Centre for Epidemiology & Biostatistics Melbourne School of Population and Global Health University of Melbourne Victoria Australia Bioinformatics and Cellular Genomics Unit St Vincent’s Institute of Medical Research Victoria Australia Melbourne Integrative Genomics School of Mathematics and Statistics School of BioSciences Faculty of Science University of Melbourne Victoria Australia Faculty of Information Technology Monash University ClaytonVIC Australia Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology Department of Public Health and Primary Care University of Cambridge Cambridge United Kingdom Precision Medicine School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health Monash University ClaytonVIC Australia Murdoch Children’s Research Institute Royal Children’s Hospital ParkvilleVIC Australia School of Computer Science Australian Institute for Machine Learning University of Adelaide SA Australia Department of Surgery St Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne VIC Australia Faculty of Medicine Dentistry and Health Sciences University of Melbourne Victoria Australia St Vincent’s BreastScreen St Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne VIC Australia Department of Radiology St Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne VIC Australia Centre for Vision Speech and Signal Processing University of Surrey United Kingdom BreastScreen Victoria VIC Australia

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to detect breast cancers from mammographic images are being developed. We evaluated the performance of an algorithm across all stages of the screening process and beyond. Methods: We used an image-specific AI-based breast cancer detection measure learnt from images of women attending BreastScreen Victoria (BRAIx cancer detection measure) to create a woman-specific standard normal mammography-based risk score (BRAIx risk score). Applying logistic regression to a random independent prospective testing cohort of 96,348 women, we estimated risk of invasive breast cancers: (i) detected at cohort entry (525);and (ii) for women given an all-clear, diagnosed during the next 4 years either at future screens (790) or during intervals between screens (308), as a function of the BRAIx risk score and other measures. We estimated the odds ratio per standard deviation (OR) and a greater risk in an upper ***: The BRAIx risk score predicted reader outcomes, recall, cancer detection and future risk. For 4-years risk, OR=2.70 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.52 to 2.88) overall with evidence for a greater OR in the upper tail (P=10-18). The predicted absolute risk was >10% for 1% of all-clear women. BRAIx risk score was greater for women with a family history and explained 23% (95% CI 21-25%) of familial aspects of risk. Mammographic density was weakly associated with risk before (OR=1.27;95% CI 1.20 to 1.35), but not after, fitting ***: The BRAIx risk score is a strong biomarker for breast cancer that could be used to inform risk-based recall for further assessment, detection and future screening. Its use would automatically identify all-clear women at similar risk to BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. BRAIx could also reveal insights into both familial and non-familial causes. Funding: Medical Research Future Fund, the Ramaciotti Foundation, National Breast Cancer Foundation, Cancer *** o

关键词： Mammography

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

Standardized Assessment of Automatic Segmentation of White Matter Hyperintensities and Results of the WMH Segmentation Challenge

arXiv

引用

arXiv 2019年

作者： Kuijf, Hugo J. Biesbroek, J. Matthijs Bresser, Jeroen de Heinen, Rutger Andermatt, Simon Bento, Mariana Berseth, Matt Belyaev, Mikhail Cardoso, M. Jorge Casamitjana, Adrià Collins, D. Louis Dadar, Mahsa Georgiou, Achilleas Ghafoorian, Mohsen Jin, Dakai Khademi, April Knight, Jesse Li, Hongwei Lladó, Xavier Luna, Miguel Mahmood, Qaiser McKinley, Richard Mehrtash, Alireza Ourselin, Sébastien Park, Bo-yong Park, Hyunjin Park, Sang Hyun Pezold, Simon Puybareau, Elodie Rittner, Leticia Sudre, Carole H. Valverde, Sergi Vilaplana, Verónica Wiest, Roland Xu, Yongchao Xu, Ziyue Zeng, Guodong Zhang, Jianguo Zheng, Guoyan Chen, Christopher Flier, Wiesje van der Barkhof, Frederik Viergever, Max A. Biessels, Geert Jan Image Sciences Institute UMC Utrecht Utrecht University Netherlands Brain Center Rudolf Magnus UMC Utrecht Utrecht University Netherlands Department of Radiology UMC Utrecht Department of Radiology LUMC Leiden Netherlands Department of Biomedical Engineering University of Basel Allschwil Switzerland Radiology and Clinical Neuroscience Hotchkiss Brain Institute University of Calgary AB Canada NLP Logix Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences King’s College London Centre for Medical Image Computing University College London Signal Theory and Communications Department Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya BarcelonaTech Barcelona Spain McGill University Canada Computational Statistics and Machine Learning MSc University College London TomTom Amsterdam Netherlands Department of Radiology and Imaging Science National Institutes of Health United States Ryerson University Canada University of Guelph Canada Sun Yat-sen University University of Dundee Technical University of Munich Research institute of Computer Vision and Robotics University of Girona Spain Department of Robotics Engineering Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology Daegu Korea Republic of Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology Support Center for Advanced Neuroimaging Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology Inselspital University of Bern Switzerland Electrical and Computer Engineering Department University of British Columbia Vancouver Department of Radiology Brigham and Women’s Hospital Harvard Medical School Boston School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences King’s College London Suwon Korea Republic of School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering Sungkyunkwan University Suwon Korea Republic of France School of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Campinas SP Brazil School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences King’s College London Centre for Medical I

Quantification of cerebral white matter hyperintensities (WMH) of presumed vascular origin is of key importance in many neurological research studies. Currently, measurements are often still obtained from manual segmentations on brain MR images, which is a laborious procedure. Automatic WMH segmentation methods exist, but a standardized comparison of the performance of such methods is lacking. We organized a scientific challenge, in which developers could evaluate their method on a standardized multi-center/-scanner image dataset, giving an objective comparison: the WMH Segmentation Challenge (https://***/).Sixty T1+FLAIR images from three MR scanners were released with manual WMH segmentations for training. A test set of 110 images from five MR scanners was used for evaluation. Segmentation methods had to be containerized and submitted to the challenge organizers. Five evaluation metrics were used to rank the methods: (1) Dice similarity coefficient, (2) modified Hausdorff distance (95th percentile), (3) absolute log-transformed volume difference, (4) sensitivity for detecting individual lesions, and (5) F1-score for individual lesions. Additionally, methods were ranked on their inter-scanner *** participants submitted their method for evaluation. This paper provides a detailed analysis of the results. In brief, there is a cluster of four methods that rank significantly better than the other methods, with one clear winner. The inter-scanner robustness ranking shows that not all methods generalize to unseen *** challenge remains open for future submissions and provides a public platform for method evaluation. Copyright © 2019, The Authors. All rights reserved.

关键词： Magnetic resonance imaging

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

Lessons Learned from Assessing Trustworthy AI in Practice

引用

Digital Society 2023年第3期2卷 1-25页

作者： Vetter, Dennis Amann, Julia Bruneault, Frédérick Coffee, Megan Düdder, Boris Gallucci, Alessio Gilbert, Thomas Krendl Hagendorff, Thilo van Halem, Irmhild Hickman, Eleanore Hildt, Elisabeth Holm, Sune Kararigas, Georgios Kringen, Pedro Madai, Vince I. Wiinblad Mathez, Emilie Tithi, Jesmin Jahan Westerlund, Magnus Wurth, Renee Zicari, Roberto V. Computational Vision and Artificial Intelligence Lab Goethe University Frankfurt Frankfurt Am Main Germany Z-Inspection® Initiative Venice Italy Health Ethics and Policy Lab ETH Zurich Zurich Switzerland Strategy and Innovation Careum Foundation Zurich Switzerland Philosophie Departement Collège André-Laurendeau Montréal Canada École Des Médias Université du Québec À Montréal Montréal Canada Department of Medicine Division of Infectious Diseases and Immunology New York University Grossman School of Medicine New York City USA Department of Computer Science University of Copenhagen Copenhagen Denmark Digital Life Initiative Cornell Tech New York City USA Cluster of Excellence “Machine Learning: New Perspectives for Science” University of Tuebingen Tuebingen Germany School of Law University of Bristol Bristol UK Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago USA Department of Business Management and Analytics Arcada University of Applied Sciences Helsinki Finland Department of Food & Resource Economics University of Copenhagen Copenhagen Denmark Department of Physiology Faculty of Medicine University of Iceland Reykjavik Iceland QUEST Centre for Responsible Research Berlin Institute of Health Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin Berlin Germany Faculty of Computing Engineering and the Built Environment School of Computing and Digital Technology Birmingham City University Birmingham UK Parallel Computing Labs Intel Santa Clara USA School of Economics Innovation and Technology Kristiania University College Oslo Norway Data Science Graduate School Seoul National University Seoul South Korea

Building artificial intelligence (AI) systems that adhere to ethical standards is a complex problem. Even though a multitude of guidelines for the design and development of such trustworthy AI systems exist, these guidelines focus on high-level and abstract requirements for AI systems, and it is often very difficult to assess if a specific system fulfills these requirements. The Z-Inspection® process provides a holistic and dynamic framework to evaluate the trustworthiness of specific AI systems at different stages of the AI lifecycle, including intended use, design, and development. It focuses, in particular, on the discussion and identification of ethical issues and tensions through the analysis of socio-technical scenarios and a requirement-based framework for ethical and trustworthy AI. This article is a methodological reflection on the Z-Inspection® process. We illustrate how high-level guidelines for ethical and trustworthy AI can be applied in practice and provide insights for both AI researchers and AI practitioners. We share the lessons learned from conducting a series of independent assessments to evaluate the trustworthiness of real-world AI systems, as well as key recommendations and practical suggestions on how to ensure a rigorous trustworthiness assessment throughout the lifecycle of an AI system. The results presented in this article are based on our assessments of AI systems in the healthcare sector and environmental monitoring, where we used the framework for trustworthy AI proposed in the Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI by the European Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on AI. However, the assessment process and the lessons learned can be adapted to other domains and include additional frameworks.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

AIROGS: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR ROBUST GLAUCOMA SCREENING CHALLENGE

arXiv

引用

arXiv 2023年

作者： De Vente, Coen Vermeer, Koenraad A. Jaccard, Nicolas Wang, He Sun, Hongyi Khader, Firas Truhn, Daniel Aimyshev, Temirgali Zhanibekuly, Yerkebulan Le, Tien-Dung Galdran, Adrian Ballester, Miguel Ángel González Carneiro, Gustavo Devika, R.G. Hrishikesh, P.S. Puthussery, Densen Liu, Hong Yang, Zekang Kondo, Satoshi Kasai, Satoshi Wang, Edward Durvasula, Ashritha Heras, Jónathan Zapata, Miguel Ángel Araújo, Teresa Aresta, Guilherme Bogunović, Hrvoje Arikan, Mustafa Lee, Yeong Chan Cho, Hyun Bin Choi, Yoon Ho Qayyum, Abdul Razzak, Imran Van Ginneken, Bram Lemij, Hans G. Sánchez, Clara I. Group Informatics Institute Universiteit Van Amsterdam Noord-Holland Amsterdam Netherlands The Department of Biomedical Engineering and Physics Amsterdam Umc Locatie Amc Noord-Holland Amsterdam Netherlands Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Radboudumc Gelderland Nijmegen Netherlands The Rotterdam Ophthalmic Institute Rotterdam Eye Hospital Rotterdam Netherlands Project Orbis International Inc. New York United States The Peking Union Medical College Hospital Beijing China The Xuanwu Hospital Capital Medical University Beijing100053 China The Tsinghua University Beijing China The Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology University Hospital Aachen Aachen Germany Cmc Technologies Llp Nur-Sultan Kazakhstan Kbc Belgium Universitat Pompeu Fabra Barcelona Spain The Australian Institute for Machine Learning Aiml University of Adelaide Australia Icrea Barcelona Spain The Centre for Vision Speech and Signal Processing University of Surrey United Kingdom The College of Engineering Trivandrum India Founding Minds Software India The Institute of Computing Technology Chinese Academy of Sciences China The Muroran Institute of Technology Japan The Niigata University of Health and Welfare Japan The Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry University of Western Ontario London Canada The Department of Mathematics and Computer Science University of la Rioja Spain Hospital Vall Hebron Passeig Roser 126 Sant Cugat del Vallès Barcelona08195 Spain UPRetina Barcelona Spain The Christian Doppler Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence in Retina Department of Ophthalmology and Optometry Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria The Institute of Ophthalmology University College London London United Kingdom The Research Institute for Future Medicine Samsung Medical Center Seoul Korea Republic of Sungkyunkwan University Samsung Medical Center Seoul Korea Republic of The Department of Artificial Intelligence and Informatics Mayo Clinic Jacks

The early detection of glaucoma is essential in preventing visual impairment. Artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to analyze color fundus photographs (CFPs) in a cost-effective manner, making glaucoma screening more accessible. While AI models for glaucoma screening from CFPs have shown promising results in laboratory settings, their performance decreases significantly in realworld scenarios due to the presence of out-of-distribution and low-quality images. To address this issue, we propose the Artificial Intelligence for Robust Glaucoma Screening (AIROGS) challenge. This challenge includes a large dataset of around 113,000 images from about 60,000 patients and 500 different screening centers, and encourages the development of algorithms that are robust to ungradable and unexpected input data. We evaluated solutions from 14 teams in this paper, and found that the best teams performed similarly to a set of 20 expert ophthalmologists and optometrists. The highest-scoring team achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-0.99) for detecting ungradable images on-the-fly. Additionally, many of the algorithms showed robust performance when tested on three other publicly available datasets. These results demonstrate the feasibility of robust AI-enabled glaucoma screening. Copyright © 2023, The Authors. All rights reserved.

关键词： Diagnosis

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

Why is the Winner the Best?

Why is the Winner the Best?

引用

Conference on computer vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

作者： M. Eisenmann A. Reinke V. Weru M. D. Tizabi F. Isensee T. J. Adler S. Ali V. Andrearczyk M. Aubreville U. Baid S. Bakas N. Balu S. Bano J. Bernal S. Bodenstedt A. Casella V. Cheplygina M. Daum M. De Bruijne A. Depeursinge R. Dorent J. Egger D. G. Ellis S. Engelhardt M. Ganz N. Ghatwary G. Girard P. Godau A. Gupta L. Hansen K. Harada M. Heinrich N. Heller A. Hering A. Huaulmé P. Jannin A. E. Kavur O. Kodym M. Kozubek J. Li H. Li J. Ma C. Martín-Isla B. Menze A. Noble V. Oreiller N. Padoy S. Pati K. Payette T. Rädsch J. Rafael-Patiño V. Singh Bawa S. Speidel C. H. Sudre K. Van Wijnen M. Wagner D. Wei A. Yamlahi M. H. Yap C. Yuan M. Zenk A. Zia D. Zimmerer D. Aydogan B. Bhattarai L. Bloch R. Brüngel J. Cho C. Choi Q. Dou I. Ezhov C. M. Friedrich C. Fuller R. R. Gaire A. Galdran Á. García Faura M. Grammatikopoulou S. Hong M. Jahanifar I. Jang A. Kadkhodamohammadi I. Kang F. Kofler S. Kondo H. Kuijf M. Li M. Luu T. Martinčič P. Morais M. A. Naser B. Oliveira D. Owen S. Pang J. Park S. Park S. Płotka E. Puybareau N. Rajpoot K. Ryu N. Saeed A. Shephard P. Shi D. Štepec R. Subedi G. Tochon H. R. Torres H. Urien J. L. Vilaça K. A. Wahid H. Wang J. Wang L. Wang X. Wang B. Wiestler M. Wodzinski F. Xia J. Xie Z. Xiong S. Yang Y. Yang Z. Zhao K. Maier-Hein P. F. Jäger A. Kopp-Schneider L. Maier-Hein Division of Intelligent Medical Systems German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg Germany Helmholtz Imaging German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg Germany Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Heidelberg University Heidelberg Germany Division of Biostatistics German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg Germany Division of Medical Image Computing German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg Germany Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences School of Computing University of Leeds Leeds UK Institute of Informatics School of Management HES-SO Valais-Wallis University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland Sierre Switzerland Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Lausanne University Hospital Lausanne Switzerland Technische Hochschule Ingolstadt Ingolstadt Germany Center for Artificial Intelligence and Data Science for Integrated Diagnostics (AI2D) and Center for Biomedical Image Computing and Analytics (CBICA) University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia PA USA Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia PA USA Department of Radiology Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia PA USA Department of Radiology University of Washington Seattle WA USA Department of Computer Science Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS) University College London London UK Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona & Computer Vision Center Barcelona Spain Division of Translational Surgical Oncology National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT/UCC) Dresden Dresden Germany Department of Advanced Robotics Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia Italy Department of Electronics Information and Bioengineering Politecnico di Milano Milan Italy IT University of Copenhagen Copenhagen Denmark Department of General Visceral and Transplantation Surgery Heidelberg University Hospital Heidelberg Germany Department of Radiology and Nuc

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 multicenter 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 post-processing (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.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

Biomedical image analysis competitions: The state of current participation practice

arXiv

引用

arXiv 2022年

作者： Eisenmann, Matthias Reinke, Annika Weru, Vivienn Tizabi, Minu Dietlinde Isensee, Fabian Adler, Tim J. Godau, Patrick Cheplygina, Veronika Kozubek, Michal Maier-Hein, Klaus Jäger, Paul F. Kopp-Schneider, Annette Maier-Hein, Lena Ali, Sharib Gupta, Anubha Kybic, Jan Noble, Alison de Solórzano, Carlos Ortiz Pachade, Samiksha Petitjean, Caroline Sage, Daniel Wei, Donglai Wilden, Elizabeth Alapatt, Deepak Andrearczyk, Vincent Baid, Ujjwal Bakas, Spyridon Balu, Niranjan Bano, Sophia Bawa, Vivek Singh Bernal, Jorge Bodenstedt, Sebastian Casella, Alessandro Choi, Jinwook Commowick, Olivier Daum, Marie Depeursinge, Adrien Dorent, Reuben Egger, Jan Eichhorn, Hannah Engelhardt, Sandy Ganz, Melanie Girard, Gabriel Hansen, Lasse Heinrich, Mattias Heller, Nicholas Hering, Alessa Huaulmé, Arnaud Kim, Hyunjeong Li, Hongwei Bran Landman, Bennett Li, Jianning Ma, Jun Martel, Anne Martín-Isla, Carlos Menze, Bjoern Nwoye, Chinedu Innocent Oreiller, Valentin Padoy, Nicolas Pati, Sarthak Payette, Kelly Sudre, Carole van Wijnen, Kimberlin Vardazaryan, Armine Vercauteren, Tom Wagner, Martin Wang, Chuanbo Yap, Moi Hoon Yu, Zeyun Yuan, Chun Zenk, Maximilian Zia, Aneeq Zimmerer, David Bao, Rina Choi, Chanyeol Cohen, Andrew Dzyubachyk, Oleh Galdran, Adrian Gan, Tianyuan Guo, Tianqi Gupta, Pradyumna Haithami, Mahmood Ho, Edward Jang, Ikbeom Li, Zhili Luo, Zhengbo Lux, Filip Makrogiannis, Sokratis Müller, Dominik Oh, Young-Tack Pang, Subeen Pape, Constantin Polat, Gorkem Reed, Charlotte Rosalie Ryu, Kanghyun Scherr, Tim Thambawita, Vajira Wang, Haoyu Wang, Xinliang Xu, Kele Yeh, Hung Yeo, Doyeob Yuan, Yixuan Zeng, Yan Zhao, Xin Abbing, Julian Adam, Jannes Adluru, Nagesh Agethen, Niklas Ahmed, Salman Al Khalil, Yasmina Alenyà, Mireia Alhoniemi, Esa An, Chengyang Arega, Tewodros Weldebirhan Avisdris, Netanell Aydogan, Dogu Baran Bai, Yingbin Calisto, Maria Baldeon Basaran, Berke Doga Beetz, Marcel Bian, Hao Blansit, Kevin Bloch, Louise Bohnsack, Robert Bosticardo, Sara Breen, Jack Brudfors, Mikael Brüngel, Raphael Cabezas, Mariano Cacciola, Alb Heidelberg Division of Intelligent Medical Systems Germany Heidelberg HI Helmholtz Imaging Germany Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Heidelberg University Heidelberg Germany Heidelberg Division of Biostatistics Germany Heidelberg Division of Medical Image Computing Germany Heidelberg HI Applied Vision Lab Germany IT University of Copenhagen Copenhagen Denmark Centre for Biomedical Image Analysis Masaryk University Brno Czech Republic Heidelberg Interactive Machine Learning Group Germany Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science and Medical Faculty Heidelberg University Heidelberg Germany NCT Heidelberg DKFZ University Hospital Heidelberg Germany School of Computing University of Leeds Leeds United Kingdom SBILab Department of ECE IIIT-Delhi India Faculty of Electrical Engineering Czech Technical University Prague Czech Republic Institute of Biomedical Engineering University of Oxford United Kingdom Center for Applied Medical Research Pamplona Spain Shri Guru Gobind Singhji Institute of Engineering and Technology Maharashtra Nanded India Université de Rouen Normandie France Lausanne Switzerland School of Engineering and Applied Science Harvard University United States ICube University of Strasbourg CNRS France Institute of Informatics School of Management HES-SO Valais-Wallis University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland Techno-Pôle 3 Sierre3960 Switzerland Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Lausanne University Hospital Rue du Bugnon 46 LausanneCH-1011 Switzerland University of Pennsylvania PhiladelphiaPA United States Department of Radiology University of Washington United States Wellcome EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences University College London London United Kingdom Visual Artificial Intelligence Lab Oxford Brookes University Oxford United Kingdom Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona & Computer Vision Center Spain Dresden Fetscherstraße 74 PF 64 Dresden01307 Germany

The number of international benchmarking competitions is steadily increasing in various fields of machine learning (ML) research and practice. So far, however, little is known about the common practice as well as bottlenecks faced by the community in tackling the research questions posed. To shed light on the status quo of algorithm development in the specific field of biomedical imaging analysis, we designed an international survey that was issued to all participants of challenges conducted in conjunction with the IEEE ISBI 2021 and MICCAI 2021 conferences (80 competitions in total). The survey covered participants' expertise and working environments, their chosen strategies, as well as algorithm characteristics. A median of 72% challenge participants took part in the survey. According to our results, knowledge exchange was the primary incentive (70%) for participation, while the reception of prize money played only a minor role (16%). While a median of 80 working hours was spent on method development, a large portion of participants stated that they did not have enough time for method development (32%). 25% perceived the infrastructure to be a bottleneck. Overall, 94% of all solutions were deep learning-based. Of these, 84% were based on standard architectures. 43% of the respondents reported that the data samples (e.g., images) were too large to be processed at once. This was most commonly addressed by patch-based training (69%), downsampling (37%), and solving 3D analysis tasks as a series of 2D tasks. K-fold cross-validation on the training set was performed by only 37% of the participants and only 50% of the participants performed ensembling based on multiple identical models (61%) or heterogeneous models (39%). 48% of the respondents applied postprocessing steps. © 2022, CC BY.

关键词： Benchmarking

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

Why is the winner the best?

arXiv

引用

arXiv 2023年

作者： Eisenmann, M. Reinke, A. Weru, V. Tizabi, M.D. Isensee, F. Adler, T.J. Ali, S. Andrearczyk, V. Aubreville, M. Baid, U. Bakas, S. Balu, N. Bano, S. Bernal, J. Bodenstedt, S. Casella, A. Cheplygina, V. Daum, M. de Bruijne, M. Depeursinge, A. Dorent, R. Egger, J. Ellis, D.G. Engelhardt, S. Ganz, M. Ghatwary, N. Girard, G. Godau, P. Gupta, A. Hansen, L. Harada, K. Heinrich, M. Heller, N. Hering, A. Huaulmé, A. Jannin, P. Kavur, A.E. Kodym, O. Kozubek, M. Li, J. Li, H. Ma, J. Martín-Isla, C. Menze, B. Noble, A. Oreiller, V. Padoy, N. Pati, S. Payette, K. Rädsch, T. Rafael-Patiño, J. Bawa, V. Singh Speidel, S. Sudre, C.H. van Wijnen, K. Wagner, M. Wei, D. Yamlahi, A. Yap, M.H. Yuan, C. Zenk, M. Zia, A. Zimmerer, D. Aydogan, D. Bhattarai, B. Bloch, L. Brüngel, R. Cho, J. Choi, C. Dou, Q. Ezhov, I. Friedrich, C.M. Fuller, C. Gaire, R.R. Galdran, A. Faura, Á. García Grammatikopoulou, M. Hong, S. Jahanifar, M. Jang, I. Kadkhodamohammadi, A. Kang, I. Kofler, F. Kondo, S. Kuijf, H. Li, M. Luu, M. Martinčič, T. Morais, P. Naser, M.A. Oliveira, B. Owen, D. Pang, S. Park, J. Park, S. Plotka, S. Puybareau, E. Rajpoot, N. Ryu, K. Saeed, N. Shephard, A. Shi, P. Štepec, D. Subedi, R. Tochon, G. Torres, H.R. Urien, H. Vilaça, J.L. Wahid, K.A. Wang, H. Wang, J. Wang, L. Wang, X. Wiestler, B. Wodzinski, M. Xia, F. Xie, J. Xiong, Z. Yang, S. Yang, Y. Zhao, Z. Maier-Hein, K. Jäger, P.F. Kopp-Schneider, A. Maier-Hein, L. Heidelberg Germany Heidelberg Germany Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Heidelberg University Heidelberg Germany Heidelberg Germany Heidelberg Germany School of Computing Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences University of Leeds Leeds United Kingdom Institute of Informatics School of Management HES-SO Valais-Wallis University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland Sierre Switzerland Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Lausanne University Hospital Lausanne Switzerland Technische Hochschule Ingolstadt Ingolstadt Germany University of Pennsylvania PhiladelphiaPA United States Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania PhiladelphiaPA United States Department of Radiology Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania PhiladelphiaPA United States Department of Radiology University of Washington SeattleWA United States Department of Computer Science University College London London United Kingdom Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona & Computer Vision Center Barcelona Spain Dresden Dresden Germany Department of Advanced Robotics Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia Italy IT University of Copenhagen Copenhagen Denmark Department of General Visceral and Transplantation Surgery Heidelberg University Hospital Heidelberg Germany Biomedical Imaging Group Rotterdam Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Erasmus MC Rotterdam Netherlands Department of Computer Science University of Copenhagen Copenhagen Denmark Sierre Switzerland Harvard Medical School Brigham and Women’s Hospital BostonMA United States School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences King’s College London London United Kingdom Essen Germany University of Nebraska Medical Center OmahaNE United States Department of Internal Medicine III Heidelberg University Hospital Heidelberg Germany Neurobiology Research Unit Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet C

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 multicenter 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. © 2023, CC BY.

关键词： Benchmarking

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

Global investments in pandemic preparedness and COVID-19: development assistance and domestic spending on health between 1990 and 2026

引用

The Lancet Global Health 2023年第3期11卷 e385-e413页

作者： Micah, Angela E. Bhangdia, Kayleigh Cogswell, Ian E. Lasher, Dylan Lidral-Porter, Brendan Maddison, Emilie R. Nguyen, Trang Nhu Ngoc Patel, Nishali Pedroza, Paola Solorio, Juan Stutzman, Hayley Tsakalos, Golsum Wang, Yifeng Warriner, Wesley Zhao, Yingxi Zlavog, Bianca S. Abbafati, Cristiana Abbas, Jaffar Abbasi-Kangevari, Mohsen Abbasi-Kangevari, Zeinab Abdelmasseh, Michael Abdulah, Deldar Morad Abedi, Aidin Abegaz, Kedir Hussein Abhilash, E.S. Aboagye, Richard Gyan Abolhassani, Hassan Abrigo, Michael R.M. Abubaker Ali, Hiwa Abu-Gharbieh, Eman Adem, Mohammed Hussien Afzal, Muhammad Sohail Ahmadi, Ali Ahmed, Haroon Ahmed Rashid, Tarik Aji, Budi Akbarialiabad, Hossein Akelew, Yibeltal Al Hamad, Hanadi Alam, Khurshid Alanezi, Fahad Mashhour Alanzi, Turki M. Al-Hanawi, Mohammed Khaled Alhassan, Robert Kaba Aljunid, Syed Mohamed Almustanyir, Sami Al-Raddadi, Rajaa M. Alvis-Guzman, Nelson Alvis-Zakzuk, Nelson J. Amare, Azmeraw T. Ameyaw, Edward Kwabena Amini-Rarani, Mostafa Amu, Hubert Ancuceanu, Robert Andrei, Tudorel Anwar, Sumadi Lukman Appiah, Francis Aqeel, Muhammad Arabloo, Jalal Arab-Zozani, Morteza Aravkin, Aleksandr Y. Aremu, Olatunde Aruleba, Raphael Taiwo Athari, Seyyed Shamsadin Avila-Burgos, Leticia Ayanore, Martin Amogre Azari, Samad Baig, Atif Amin Bantie, Abere Tilahun Barrow, Amadou Baskaran, Pritish Basu, Sanjay Batiha, Abdul-Monim Mohammad Baune, Bernhard T. Berezvai, Zombor Bhardwaj, Nikha Bhardwaj, Pankaj Bhaskar, Sonu Boachie, Micheal Kofi Bodolica, Virginia Botelho, João Silva Botelho Braithwaite, Dejana Breitborde, Nicholas J.K. Busse, Reinhard Cahuana-Hurtado, Lucero Catalá-López, Ferrán Chansa, Collins Charan, Jaykaran Chattu, Vijay Kumar Chen, Simiao Chukwu, Isaac Sunday Dadras, Omid Dandona, Lalit Dandona, Rakhi Dargahi, Abdollah Debela, Sisay Abebe Denova-Gutiérrez, Edgar Desye, Belay Dharmaratne, Samath Dhamminda Diao, Nancy Doan, Linh Phuong Dodangeh, Milad dos Santos, Wendel Mombaque Doshmangir, Leila Dube, John Eini, Ebrahim El Sayed Zaki, Maysaa El Tantawi, Maha Enyew, Daniel Berhanie Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation University of Washington Seattle WA United States Department of Applied Mathematics University of Washington Seattle WA United States Department of Health Metrics Sciences School of Medicine University of Washington Seattle WA United States Nuffield Department of Medicine University of Oxford Oxford United Kingdom Department of Juridical and Economic Studies La Sapienza University Rome Italy Antai College of Economics Shanghai Jiao Tong University Shanghai China Non-communicable Diseases Research Center Tehran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran Research Center for Immunodeficiencies Tehran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran Multiple Sclerosis Research Center Tehran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran Children’s Medical Center Tehran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics Tehran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran Tehran Heart Center Tehran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran Faculty of Medicine Tehran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran National Institute for Health Research Tehran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran Department of Pharmacology Tehran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran Department of Cardiology Tehran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran Sina Trauma and Surgery Research Center Tehran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran Digestive Diseases Research Institute Tehran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran Department of Neurology Tehran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran Social Determinants of Health Research Center Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran Department of Epidemiology Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran Department of Health Economics and Statistics Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran Department of Neurosurgery Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran Ophthalmic R

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted gaps in health surveillance systems, disease prevention, and treatment globally. Among the many factors that might have led to these gaps is the issue of the financing of national health systems, especially in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), as well as a robust global system for pandemic preparedness. We aimed to provide a comparative assessment of global health spending at the onset of the pandemic;characterise the amount of development assistance for pandemic preparedness and response disbursed in the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic;and examine expectations for future health spending and put into context the expected need for investment in pandemic preparedness. Methods: In this analysis of global health spending between 1990 and 2021, and prediction from 2021 to 2026, we estimated four sources of health spending: development assistance for health (DAH), government spending, out-of-pocket spending, and prepaid private spending across 204 countries and territories. We used the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)'s Creditor Reporting System (CRS) and the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database (GHED) to estimate spending. We estimated development assistance for general health, COVID-19 response, and pandemic preparedness and response using a keyword search. Health spending estimates were combined with estimates of resources needed for pandemic prevention and preparedness to analyse future health spending patterns, relative to need. Findings: In 2019, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, US$9·2 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 9·1–9·3) was spent on health worldwide. We found great disparities in the amount of resources devoted to health, with high-income countries spending $7·3 trillion (95% UI 7·2–7·4) in 2019;293·7 times the $24·8 billion (95% UI 24·3–25·3) spent by low-income countries in 2019. That same year, $43·1 billion in development assistance was provided

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

Author Correction: Federated learning enables big data for rare cancer boundary detection

引用

Nature communications 2023年第1期14卷 436页

作者： Sarthak Pati Ujjwal Baid Brandon Edwards Micah Sheller Shih-Han Wang G Anthony Reina Patrick Foley Alexey Gruzdev Deepthi Karkada Christos Davatzikos Chiharu Sako Satyam Ghodasara Michel Bilello Suyash Mohan Philipp Vollmuth Gianluca Brugnara Chandrakanth J Preetha Felix Sahm Klaus Maier-Hein Maximilian Zenk Martin Bendszus Wolfgang Wick Evan Calabrese Jeffrey Rudie Javier Villanueva-Meyer Soonmee Cha Madhura Ingalhalikar Manali Jadhav Umang Pandey Jitender Saini John Garrett Matthew Larson Robert Jeraj Stuart Currie Russell Frood Kavi Fatania Raymond Y Huang Ken Chang Carmen Balaña Jaume Capellades Josep Puig Johannes Trenkler Josef Pichler Georg Necker Andreas Haunschmidt Stephan Meckel Gaurav Shukla Spencer Liem Gregory S Alexander Joseph Lombardo Joshua D Palmer Adam E Flanders Adam P Dicker Haris I Sair Craig K Jones Archana Venkataraman Meirui Jiang Tiffany Y So Cheng Chen Pheng Ann Heng Qi Dou Michal Kozubek Filip Lux Jan Michálek Petr Matula Miloš Keřkovský Tereza Kopřivová Marek Dostál Václav Vybíhal Michael A Vogelbaum J Ross Mitchell Joaquim Farinhas Joseph A Maldjian Chandan Ganesh Bangalore Yogananda Marco C Pinho Divya Reddy James Holcomb Benjamin C Wagner Benjamin M Ellingson Timothy F Cloughesy Catalina Raymond Talia Oughourlian Akifumi Hagiwara Chencai Wang Minh-Son To Sargam Bhardwaj Chee Chong Marc Agzarian Alexandre Xavier Falcão Samuel B Martins Bernardo C A Teixeira Flávia Sprenger David Menotti Diego R Lucio Pamela LaMontagne Daniel Marcus Benedikt Wiestler Florian Kofler Ivan Ezhov Marie Metz Rajan Jain Matthew Lee Yvonne W Lui Richard McKinley Johannes Slotboom Piotr Radojewski Raphael Meier Roland Wiest Derrick Murcia Eric Fu Rourke Haas John Thompson David Ryan Ormond Chaitra Badve Andrew E Sloan Vachan Vadmal Kristin Waite Rivka R Colen Linmin Pei Murat Ak Ashok Srinivasan J Rajiv Bapuraj Arvind Rao Nicholas Wang Ota Yoshiaki Toshio Moritani Sevcan Turk Joonsang Lee Snehal Prabhudesai Fanny Morón Jacob Mandel Konstantinos Kamnitsas Ben Glocker Luke V M Dixon Matthew Williams Peter Zamp Center for Biomedical Image Computing and Analytics (CBICA) University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia PA USA. Department of Radiology Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia PA USA. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia PA USA. Department of Informatics Technical University of Munich Munich Bavaria Germany. Intel Corporation Santa Clara CA USA. Department of Neuroradiology Heidelberg University Hospital Heidelberg Germany. Clinical Cooperation Unit Neuropathology German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) within the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg Germany. Department of Neuropathology Heidelberg University Hospital Heidelberg Germany. Division of Medical Image Computing German Cancer Research Center Heidelberg Germany. Pattern Analysis and Learning Group Department of Radiation Oncology Heidelberg University Hospital Heidelberg Germany. Neurology Clinic Heidelberg University Hospital Heidelberg Germany. Department of Radiology & Biomedical Imaging University of California San Francisco San Francisco CA USA. Symbiosis Center for Medical Image Analysis Symbiosis International University Pune Maharashtra India. Department of Neuroimaging and Interventional Radiology National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences Bangalore Karnataka India. Department of Radiology School of Medicine and Public Health University of Wisconsin Madison WI USA. Department of Medical Physics School of Medicine and Public Health University of Wisconsin Madison WI USA. Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust Department of Radiology Leeds UK. Department of Radiology Brigham and Women's Hospital Harvard Medical School Boston MA USA. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging Massachusetts General Hospital Charlestown MA USA. Catalan Institute of Oncology Badalona Spain. Consorci MAR Parc de Salut de Barcelona Catalonia Spain. Department of Radiology (IDI

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

建议与咨询留下您的常用邮箱和电话号码，以便我们向您反馈解决方案和替代方法

时间限定

文献类型

馆藏选择

核心期刊

语言

文献类型

帮助

文字说明：

检索规则说明：

检索范例：

分类表

所选分类

限定检索结果

文献类型

馆藏范围

日期分布

学科分类号

主题

机构

作者

语言

请选择保存的检索档案：

请选择收藏分类：

通借通还

建议与咨询 留下您的常用邮箱和电话号码，以便我们向您反馈解决方案和替代方法

时间限定

文献类型

馆藏选择

核心期刊

语言

文献类型

帮助

文字说明：

检索规则说明：

检索范例：

分类表

所选分类

限定检索结果

文献类型

馆藏范围

日期分布

学科分类号

主题

机构

作者

语言

请选择保存的检索档案： 新增检索档案 确定 取消

请选择收藏分类： 新增自定义分类 确定 取消

通借通还

建议与咨询留下您的常用邮箱和电话号码，以便我们向您反馈解决方案和替代方法

请选择保存的检索档案：

请选择收藏分类：