Pith. sign in

REVIEW

More unlabelled data or label more data? A study on semi-supervised laparoscopic image segmentation

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 1908.08035 v1 pith:RF2IVGKT submitted 2019-08-20 eess.IV cs.CVcs.LGstat.ML

classification eess.IVcs.CVcs.LGstat.ML
keywords datasegmentationunlabelledsemi-supervisedimagetrainingalgorithmapplication
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Improving a semi-supervised image segmentation task has the option of adding more unlabelled images, labelling the unlabelled images or combining both, as neither image acquisition nor expert labelling can be considered trivial in most clinical applications. With a laparoscopic liver image segmentation application, we investigate the performance impact by altering the quantities of labelled and unlabelled training data, using a semi-supervised segmentation algorithm based on the mean teacher learning paradigm. We first report a significantly higher segmentation accuracy, compared with supervised learning. Interestingly, this comparison reveals that the training strategy adopted in the semi-supervised algorithm is also responsible for this observed improvement, in addition to the added unlabelled data. We then compare different combinations of labelled and unlabelled data set sizes for training semi-supervised segmentation networks, to provide a quantitative example of the practically useful trade-off between the two data planning strategies in this surgical guidance application.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools