Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Learning Whole-Slide Segmentation from Inexact and Incomplete Labels using Tissue Graphs

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2103.03129 v1 pith:SKE7CPBP submitted 2021-03-04 cs.CV

classification cs.CV
keywords segmentationhistologydatasetsincompleteinexactregionssegginitechniques
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Segmenting histology images into diagnostically relevant regions is imperative to support timely and reliable decisions by pathologists. To this end, computer-aided techniques have been proposed to delineate relevant regions in scanned histology slides. However, the techniques necessitate task-specific large datasets of annotated pixels, which is tedious, time-consuming, expensive, and infeasible to acquire for many histology tasks. Thus, weakly-supervised semantic segmentation techniques are proposed to utilize weak supervision that is cheaper and quicker to acquire. In this paper, we propose SegGini, a weakly supervised segmentation method using graphs, that can utilize weak multiplex annotations, i.e. inexact and incomplete annotations, to segment arbitrary and large images, scaling from tissue microarray (TMA) to whole slide image (WSI). Formally, SegGini constructs a tissue-graph representation for an input histology image, where the graph nodes depict tissue regions. Then, it performs weakly-supervised segmentation via node classification by using inexact image-level labels, incomplete scribbles, or both. We evaluated SegGini on two public prostate cancer datasets containing TMAs and WSIs. Our method achieved state-of-the-art segmentation performance on both datasets for various annotation settings while being comparable to a pathologist baseline.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Pith tools