Biological data annotation via a human-augmenting AI-based labeling system

Abstract Biology has become a prime area for the deployment of deep learning and artificial intelligence (AI), enabled largely by the massive data sets that the field can generate. Key to most AI tasks is the availability of a sufficiently large, labeled data set with which to train AI models. In th...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Douwe van der Wal, Iny Jhun, Israa Laklouk, Jeff Nirschl, Lara Richer, Rebecca Rojansky, Talent Theparee, Joshua Wheeler, Jörg Sander, Felix Feng, Osama Mohamad, Silvio Savarese, Richard Socher, Andre Esteva
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Nature Portfolio 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/d6164252a0d94935879eacf682d4bdaf
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
Descripción
Sumario:Abstract Biology has become a prime area for the deployment of deep learning and artificial intelligence (AI), enabled largely by the massive data sets that the field can generate. Key to most AI tasks is the availability of a sufficiently large, labeled data set with which to train AI models. In the context of microscopy, it is easy to generate image data sets containing millions of cells and structures. However, it is challenging to obtain large-scale high-quality annotations for AI models. Here, we present HALS (Human-Augmenting Labeling System), a human-in-the-loop data labeling AI, which begins uninitialized and learns annotations from a human, in real-time. Using a multi-part AI composed of three deep learning models, HALS learns from just a few examples and immediately decreases the workload of the annotator, while increasing the quality of their annotations. Using a highly repetitive use-case—annotating cell types—and running experiments with seven pathologists—experts at the microscopic analysis of biological specimens—we demonstrate a manual work reduction of 90.60%, and an average data-quality boost of 4.34%, measured across four use-cases and two tissue stain types.