-
Understanding metric-related pitfalls in image analysis validation
Authors:
Annika Reinke,
Minu D. Tizabi,
Michael Baumgartner,
Matthias Eisenmann,
Doreen Heckmann-Nötzel,
A. Emre Kavur,
Tim Rädsch,
Carole H. Sudre,
Laura Acion,
Michela Antonelli,
Tal Arbel,
Spyridon Bakas,
Arriel Benis,
Matthew Blaschko,
Florian Buettner,
M. Jorge Cardoso,
Veronika Cheplygina,
Jianxu Chen,
Evangelia Christodoulou,
Beth A. Cimini,
Gary S. Collins,
Keyvan Farahani,
Luciana Ferrer,
Adrian Galdran,
Bram van Ginneken
, et al. (53 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Validation metrics are key for the reliable tracking of scientific progress and for bridging the current chasm between artificial intelligence (AI) research and its translation into practice. However, increasing evidence shows that particularly in image analysis, metrics are often chosen inadequately in relation to the underlying research problem. This could be attributed to a lack of accessibilit…
▽ More
Validation metrics are key for the reliable tracking of scientific progress and for bridging the current chasm between artificial intelligence (AI) research and its translation into practice. However, increasing evidence shows that particularly in image analysis, metrics are often chosen inadequately in relation to the underlying research problem. This could be attributed to a lack of accessibility of metric-related knowledge: While taking into account the individual strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of validation metrics is a critical prerequisite to making educated choices, the relevant knowledge is currently scattered and poorly accessible to individual researchers. Based on a multi-stage Delphi process conducted by a multidisciplinary expert consortium as well as extensive community feedback, the present work provides the first reliable and comprehensive common point of access to information on pitfalls related to validation metrics in image analysis. Focusing on biomedical image analysis but with the potential of transfer to other fields, the addressed pitfalls generalize across application domains and are categorized according to a newly created, domain-agnostic taxonomy. To facilitate comprehension, illustrations and specific examples accompany each pitfall. As a structured body of information accessible to researchers of all levels of expertise, this work enhances global comprehension of a key topic in image analysis validation.
△ Less
Submitted 23 February, 2024; v1 submitted 3 February, 2023;
originally announced February 2023.
-
Metrics reloaded: Recommendations for image analysis validation
Authors:
Lena Maier-Hein,
Annika Reinke,
Patrick Godau,
Minu D. Tizabi,
Florian Buettner,
Evangelia Christodoulou,
Ben Glocker,
Fabian Isensee,
Jens Kleesiek,
Michal Kozubek,
Mauricio Reyes,
Michael A. Riegler,
Manuel Wiesenfarth,
A. Emre Kavur,
Carole H. Sudre,
Michael Baumgartner,
Matthias Eisenmann,
Doreen Heckmann-Nötzel,
Tim Rädsch,
Laura Acion,
Michela Antonelli,
Tal Arbel,
Spyridon Bakas,
Arriel Benis,
Matthew Blaschko
, et al. (49 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Increasing evidence shows that flaws in machine learning (ML) algorithm validation are an underestimated global problem. Particularly in automatic biomedical image analysis, chosen performance metrics often do not reflect the domain interest, thus failing to adequately measure scientific progress and hindering translation of ML techniques into practice. To overcome this, our large international ex…
▽ More
Increasing evidence shows that flaws in machine learning (ML) algorithm validation are an underestimated global problem. Particularly in automatic biomedical image analysis, chosen performance metrics often do not reflect the domain interest, thus failing to adequately measure scientific progress and hindering translation of ML techniques into practice. To overcome this, our large international expert consortium created Metrics Reloaded, a comprehensive framework guiding researchers in the problem-aware selection of metrics. Following the convergence of ML methodology across application domains, Metrics Reloaded fosters the convergence of validation methodology. The framework was developed in a multi-stage Delphi process and is based on the novel concept of a problem fingerprint - a structured representation of the given problem that captures all aspects that are relevant for metric selection, from the domain interest to the properties of the target structure(s), data set and algorithm output. Based on the problem fingerprint, users are guided through the process of choosing and applying appropriate validation metrics while being made aware of potential pitfalls. Metrics Reloaded targets image analysis problems that can be interpreted as a classification task at image, object or pixel level, namely image-level classification, object detection, semantic segmentation, and instance segmentation tasks. To improve the user experience, we implemented the framework in the Metrics Reloaded online tool, which also provides a point of access to explore weaknesses, strengths and specific recommendations for the most common validation metrics. The broad applicability of our framework across domains is demonstrated by an instantiation for various biological and medical image analysis use cases.
△ Less
Submitted 23 February, 2024; v1 submitted 3 June, 2022;
originally announced June 2022.
-
Common Limitations of Image Processing Metrics: A Picture Story
Authors:
Annika Reinke,
Minu D. Tizabi,
Carole H. Sudre,
Matthias Eisenmann,
Tim Rädsch,
Michael Baumgartner,
Laura Acion,
Michela Antonelli,
Tal Arbel,
Spyridon Bakas,
Peter Bankhead,
Arriel Benis,
Matthew Blaschko,
Florian Buettner,
M. Jorge Cardoso,
Jianxu Chen,
Veronika Cheplygina,
Evangelia Christodoulou,
Beth Cimini,
Gary S. Collins,
Sandy Engelhardt,
Keyvan Farahani,
Luciana Ferrer,
Adrian Galdran,
Bram van Ginneken
, et al. (68 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
While the importance of automatic image analysis is continuously increasing, recent meta-research revealed major flaws with respect to algorithm validation. Performance metrics are particularly key for meaningful, objective, and transparent performance assessment and validation of the used automatic algorithms, but relatively little attention has been given to the practical pitfalls when using spe…
▽ More
While the importance of automatic image analysis is continuously increasing, recent meta-research revealed major flaws with respect to algorithm validation. Performance metrics are particularly key for meaningful, objective, and transparent performance assessment and validation of the used automatic algorithms, but relatively little attention has been given to the practical pitfalls when using specific metrics for a given image analysis task. These are typically related to (1) the disregard of inherent metric properties, such as the behaviour in the presence of class imbalance or small target structures, (2) the disregard of inherent data set properties, such as the non-independence of the test cases, and (3) the disregard of the actual biomedical domain interest that the metrics should reflect. This living dynamically document has the purpose to illustrate important limitations of performance metrics commonly applied in the field of image analysis. In this context, it focuses on biomedical image analysis problems that can be phrased as image-level classification, semantic segmentation, instance segmentation, or object detection task. The current version is based on a Delphi process on metrics conducted by an international consortium of image analysis experts from more than 60 institutions worldwide.
△ Less
Submitted 6 December, 2023; v1 submitted 12 April, 2021;
originally announced April 2021.
-
Decision Support in the Context of a Complex Decision Situation
Authors:
Teus H. Kappen,
Mirko Noordegraaf,
Wilton A. van Klei,
Karel G. M. Moons,
Cor J. Kalkman
Abstract:
The aim of a clinical decision support tool is to reduce the complexity of clinical decisions. However, when decision support tools are poorly implemented they may actually confuse physicians and complicate clinical care. This paper argues that information from decision support tools is often removed from the clinical context of the targeted decisions. Physicians largely depend on clinical context…
▽ More
The aim of a clinical decision support tool is to reduce the complexity of clinical decisions. However, when decision support tools are poorly implemented they may actually confuse physicians and complicate clinical care. This paper argues that information from decision support tools is often removed from the clinical context of the targeted decisions. Physicians largely depend on clinical context to handle the complexity of their day-to-day decisions. Clinical context enables them to take into account all ambiguous information and patient preferences. Decision support tools that provide analytic information to physicians, without its context, may then complicate the decision process of physicians. It is likely that the joint forces of physicians and technology will produce better decisions than either of them exclusively: after all, they do have different ways of dealing with the complexity of a decision and are thus complementary. Therefore, the future challenges of decision support do not only reside in the optimization of the predictive value of the underlying models and algorithms, but equally in the effective communication of information and its context to doctors.
△ Less
Submitted 2 March, 2020;
originally announced March 2020.
-
Machine learning and AI research for Patient Benefit: 20 Critical Questions on Transparency, Replicability, Ethics and Effectiveness
Authors:
Sebastian Vollmer,
Bilal A. Mateen,
Gergo Bohner,
Franz J Király,
Rayid Ghani,
Pall Jonsson,
Sarah Cumbers,
Adrian Jonas,
Katherine S. L. McAllister,
Puja Myles,
David Granger,
Mark Birse,
Richard Branson,
Karel GM Moons,
Gary S Collins,
John P. A. Ioannidis,
Chris Holmes,
Harry Hemingway
Abstract:
Machine learning (ML), artificial intelligence (AI) and other modern statistical methods are providing new opportunities to operationalize previously untapped and rapidly growing sources of data for patient benefit. Whilst there is a lot of promising research currently being undertaken, the literature as a whole lacks: transparency; clear reporting to facilitate replicability; exploration for pote…
▽ More
Machine learning (ML), artificial intelligence (AI) and other modern statistical methods are providing new opportunities to operationalize previously untapped and rapidly growing sources of data for patient benefit. Whilst there is a lot of promising research currently being undertaken, the literature as a whole lacks: transparency; clear reporting to facilitate replicability; exploration for potential ethical concerns; and, clear demonstrations of effectiveness. There are many reasons for why these issues exist, but one of the most important that we provide a preliminary solution for here is the current lack of ML/AI- specific best practice guidance. Although there is no consensus on what best practice looks in this field, we believe that interdisciplinary groups pursuing research and impact projects in the ML/AI for health domain would benefit from answering a series of questions based on the important issues that exist when undertaking work of this nature. Here we present 20 questions that span the entire project life cycle, from inception, data analysis, and model evaluation, to implementation, as a means to facilitate project planning and post-hoc (structured) independent evaluation. By beginning to answer these questions in different settings, we can start to understand what constitutes a good answer, and we expect that the resulting discussion will be central to developing an international consensus framework for transparent, replicable, ethical and effective research in artificial intelligence (AI-TREE) for health.
△ Less
Submitted 21 December, 2018;
originally announced December 2018.
