Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Learning from Multiple Expert Annotators for Enhancing Anomaly Detection in Medical Image Analysis

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2203.10611 v1 pith:JYQP6YP3 submitted 2022-03-20 cs.CV

Learning from Multiple Expert Annotators for Enhancing Anomaly Detection in Medical Image Analysis

classification cs.CV
keywords annotatorsannotationsmedicalapproachgroundlearningmultipletruth
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Building an accurate computer-aided diagnosis system based on data-driven approaches requires a large amount of high-quality labeled data. In medical imaging analysis, multiple expert annotators often produce subjective estimates about "ground truth labels" during the annotation process, depending on their expertise and experience. As a result, the labeled data may contain a variety of human biases with a high rate of disagreement among annotators, which significantly affect the performance of supervised machine learning algorithms. To tackle this challenge, we propose a simple yet effective approach to combine annotations from multiple radiology experts for training a deep learning-based detector that aims to detect abnormalities on medical scans. The proposed method first estimates the ground truth annotations and confidence scores of training examples. The estimated annotations and their scores are then used to train a deep learning detector with a re-weighted loss function to localize abnormal findings. We conduct an extensive experimental evaluation of the proposed approach on both simulated and real-world medical imaging datasets. The experimental results show that our approach significantly outperforms baseline approaches that do not consider the disagreements among annotators, including methods in which all of the noisy annotations are treated equally as ground truth and the ensemble of different models trained on different label sets provided separately by annotators.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.