Why rankings of biomedical image analysis competitions should be interpreted with care

Why rankings of biomedical image analysis competitions should be interpreted with care

Biomedical image analysis challenges have increased in the last ten years, but common practices have not been established yet. Here the authors analyze 150 recent challenges and demonstrate that outcome varies based on the metrics used and that limited information reporting hampers reproducibility.

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lena Maier-Hein, Matthias Eisenmann, Annika Reinke, Sinan Onogur, Marko Stankovic, Patrick Scholz, Tal Arbel, Hrvoje Bogunovic, Andrew P. Bradley, Aaron Carass, Carolin Feldmann, Alejandro F. Frangi, Peter M. Full, Bram van Ginneken, Allan Hanbury, Katrin Honauer, Michal Kozubek, Bennett A. Landman, Keno März, Oskar Maier, Klaus Maier-Hein, Bjoern H. Menze, Henning Müller, Peter F. Neher, Wiro Niessen, Nasir Rajpoot, Gregory C. Sharp, Korsuk Sirinukunwattana, Stefanie Speidel, Christian Stock, Danail Stoyanov, Abdel Aziz Taha, Fons van der Sommen, Ching-Wei Wang, Marc-André Weber, Guoyan Zheng, Pierre Jannin, Annette Kopp-Schneider
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Nature Portfolio 2018
Materias:
Science
Q
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/38c338af34d545ae996e15b163f6024c
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
Descripción
Sumario:Biomedical image analysis challenges have increased in the last ten years, but common practices have not been established yet. Here the authors analyze 150 recent challenges and demonstrate that outcome varies based on the metrics used and that limited information reporting hampers reproducibility.

Ejemplares similares