Paper Reading AI Learner

Biomedical image analysis competitions: The state of current participation practice

2022-12-16 16:44:46
Matthias Eisenmann, Annika Reinke, Vivienn Weru, Minu Dietlinde Tizabi, Fabian Isensee, Tim J. Adler, Patrick Godau, Veronika Cheplygina, Michal Kozubek, Sharib Ali, Anubha Gupta, Jan Kybic, Alison Noble, Carlos Ortiz de Solórzano, Samiksha Pachade, Caroline Petitjean, Daniel Sage, Donglai Wei, Elizabeth Wilden, Deepak Alapatt, Vincent Andrearczyk, Ujjwal Baid, Spyridon Bakas, Niranjan Balu, Sophia Bano, Vivek Singh Bawa, Jorge Bernal, Sebastian Bodenstedt, Alessandro Casella, Jinwook Choi, Olivier Commowick, Marie Daum, Adrien Depeursinge, Reuben Dorent, Jan Egger, Hannah Eichhorn, Sandy Engelhardt, Melanie Ganz, Gabriel Girard, Lasse Hansen, Mattias Heinrich, Nicholas Heller, Alessa Hering, Arnaud Huaulmé, Hyunjeong Kim, Bennett Landman, Hongwei Bran Li, Jianning Li, Jun Ma, Anne Martel, et al. (305 additional authors not shown)

Abstract

The number of international benchmarking competitions is steadily increasing in various fields of machine learning (ML) research and practice. So far, however, little is known about the common practice as well as bottlenecks faced by the community in tackling the research questions posed. To shed light on the status quo of algorithm development in the specific field of biomedical imaging analysis, we designed an international survey that was issued to all participants of challenges conducted in conjunction with the IEEE ISBI 2021 and MICCAI 2021 conferences (80 competitions in total). The survey covered participants' expertise and working environments, their chosen strategies, as well as algorithm characteristics. A median of 72% challenge participants took part in the survey. According to our results, knowledge exchange was the primary incentive (70%) for participation, while the reception of prize money played only a minor role (16%). While a median of 80 working hours was spent on method development, a large portion of participants stated that they did not have enough time for method development (32%). 25% perceived the infrastructure to be a bottleneck. Overall, 94% of all solutions were deep learning-based. Of these, 84% were based on standard architectures. 43% of the respondents reported that the data samples (e.g., images) were too large to be processed at once. This was most commonly addressed by patch-based training (69%), downsampling (37%), and solving 3D analysis tasks as a series of 2D tasks. K-fold cross-validation on the training set was performed by only 37% of the participants and only 50% of the participants performed ensembling based on multiple identical models (61%) or heterogeneous models (39%). 48% of the respondents applied postprocessing steps.

Abstract (translated)

URL

https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.08568

PDF

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.08568.pdf


Tags
3D Action Action_Localization Action_Recognition Activity Adversarial Agent Attention Autonomous Bert Boundary_Detection Caption Chat Classification CNN Compressive_Sensing Contour Contrastive_Learning Deep_Learning Denoising Detection Dialog Diffusion Drone Dynamic_Memory_Network Edge_Detection Embedding Embodied Emotion Enhancement Face Face_Detection Face_Recognition Facial_Landmark Few-Shot Gait_Recognition GAN Gaze_Estimation Gesture Gradient_Descent Handwriting Human_Parsing Image_Caption Image_Classification Image_Compression Image_Enhancement Image_Generation Image_Matting Image_Retrieval Inference Inpainting Intelligent_Chip Knowledge Knowledge_Graph Language_Model Matching Medical Memory_Networks Multi_Modal Multi_Task NAS NMT Object_Detection Object_Tracking OCR Ontology Optical_Character Optical_Flow Optimization Person_Re-identification Point_Cloud Portrait_Generation Pose Pose_Estimation Prediction QA Quantitative Quantitative_Finance Quantization Re-identification Recognition Recommendation Reconstruction Regularization Reinforcement_Learning Relation Relation_Extraction Represenation Represenation_Learning Restoration Review RNN Salient Scene_Classification Scene_Generation Scene_Parsing Scene_Text Segmentation Self-Supervised Semantic_Instance_Segmentation Semantic_Segmentation Semi_Global Semi_Supervised Sence_graph Sentiment Sentiment_Classification Sketch SLAM Sparse Speech Speech_Recognition Style_Transfer Summarization Super_Resolution Surveillance Survey Text_Classification Text_Generation Tracking Transfer_Learning Transformer Unsupervised Video_Caption Video_Classification Video_Indexing Video_Prediction Video_Retrieval Visual_Relation VQA Weakly_Supervised Zero-Shot