-
Surgical Data Science -- from Concepts toward Clinical Translation
Authors:
Lena Maier-Hein,
Matthias Eisenmann,
Duygu Sarikaya,
Keno März,
Toby Collins,
Anand Malpani,
Johannes Fallert,
Hubertus Feussner,
Stamatia Giannarou,
Pietro Mascagni,
Hirenkumar Nakawala,
Adrian Park,
Carla Pugh,
Danail Stoyanov,
Swaroop S. Vedula,
Kevin Cleary,
Gabor Fichtinger,
Germain Forestier,
Bernard Gibaud,
Teodor Grantcharov,
Makoto Hashizume,
Doreen Heckmann-Nötzel,
Hannes G. Kenngott,
Ron Kikinis,
Lars Mündermann
, et al. (25 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Recent developments in data science in general and machine learning in particular have transformed the way experts envision the future of surgery. Surgical Data Science (SDS) is a new research field that aims to improve the quality of interventional healthcare through the capture, organization, analysis and modeling of data. While an increasing number of data-driven approaches and clinical applica…
▽ More
Recent developments in data science in general and machine learning in particular have transformed the way experts envision the future of surgery. Surgical Data Science (SDS) is a new research field that aims to improve the quality of interventional healthcare through the capture, organization, analysis and modeling of data. While an increasing number of data-driven approaches and clinical applications have been studied in the fields of radiological and clinical data science, translational success stories are still lacking in surgery. In this publication, we shed light on the underlying reasons and provide a roadmap for future advances in the field. Based on an international workshop involving leading researchers in the field of SDS, we review current practice, key achievements and initiatives as well as available standards and tools for a number of topics relevant to the field, namely (1) infrastructure for data acquisition, storage and access in the presence of regulatory constraints, (2) data annotation and sharing and (3) data analytics. We further complement this technical perspective with (4) a review of currently available SDS products and the translational progress from academia and (5) a roadmap for faster clinical translation and exploitation of the full potential of SDS, based on an international multi-round Delphi process.
△ Less
Submitted 30 July, 2021; v1 submitted 30 October, 2020;
originally announced November 2020.
-
BIAS: Transparent reporting of biomedical image analysis challenges
Authors:
Lena Maier-Hein,
Annika Reinke,
Michal Kozubek,
Anne L. Martel,
Tal Arbel,
Matthias Eisenmann,
Allan Hanbuary,
Pierre Jannin,
Henning Müller,
Sinan Onogur,
Julio Saez-Rodriguez,
Bram van Ginneken,
Annette Kopp-Schneider,
Bennett Landman
Abstract:
The number of biomedical image analysis challenges organized per year is steadily increasing. These international competitions have the purpose of benchmarking algorithms on common data sets, typically to identify the best method for a given problem. Recent research, however, revealed that common practice related to challenge reporting does not allow for adequate interpretation and reproducibility…
▽ More
The number of biomedical image analysis challenges organized per year is steadily increasing. These international competitions have the purpose of benchmarking algorithms on common data sets, typically to identify the best method for a given problem. Recent research, however, revealed that common practice related to challenge reporting does not allow for adequate interpretation and reproducibility of results. To address the discrepancy between the impact of challenges and the quality (control), the Biomedical I mage Analysis ChallengeS (BIAS) initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of challenges. The BIAS statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a biomedical image analysis challenge regardless of field of application, image modality or task category assessed. This article describes how the BIAS statement was developed and presents a checklist which authors of biomedical image analysis challenges are encouraged to include in their submission when giving a paper on a challenge into review. The purpose of the checklist is to standardize and facilitate the review process and raise interpretability and reproducibility of challenge results by making relevant information explicit.
△ Less
Submitted 31 August, 2020; v1 submitted 9 October, 2019;
originally announced October 2019.
-
Why rankings of biomedical image analysis competitions should be interpreted with care
Authors:
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
, et al. (13 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
International challenges have become the standard for validation of biomedical image analysis methods. Given their scientific impact, it is surprising that a critical analysis of common practices related to the organization of challenges has not yet been performed. In this paper, we present a comprehensive analysis of biomedical image analysis challenges conducted up to now. We demonstrate the imp…
▽ More
International challenges have become the standard for validation of biomedical image analysis methods. Given their scientific impact, it is surprising that a critical analysis of common practices related to the organization of challenges has not yet been performed. In this paper, we present a comprehensive analysis of biomedical image analysis challenges conducted up to now. We demonstrate the importance of challenges and show that the lack of quality control has critical consequences. First, reproducibility and interpretation of the results is often hampered as only a fraction of relevant information is typically provided. Second, the rank of an algorithm is generally not robust to a number of variables such as the test data used for validation, the ranking scheme applied and the observers that make the reference annotations. To overcome these problems, we recommend best practice guidelines and define open research questions to be addressed in the future.
△ Less
Submitted 18 September, 2019; v1 submitted 6 June, 2018;
originally announced June 2018.
