Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Employing Weak Annotations for Medical Image Analysis Problems

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 1708.06297 v1 pith:IQUSEVOE submitted 2017-08-21 cs.CV

Employing Weak Annotations for Medical Image Analysis Problems

classification cs.CV
keywords annotationsaccuracyweakannotationexpertiseimageimpactmedical
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

To efficiently establish training databases for machine learning methods, collaborative and crowdsourcing platforms have been investigated to collectively tackle the annotation effort. However, when this concept is ported to the medical imaging domain, reading expertise will have a direct impact on the annotation accuracy. In this study, we examine the impact of expertise and the amount of available annotations on the accuracy outcome of a liver segmentation problem in an abdominal computed tomography (CT) image database. In controlled experiments, we study this impact for different types of weak annotations. To address the decrease in accuracy associated with lower expertise, we propose a method for outlier correction making use of a weakly labelled atlas. Using this approach, we demonstrate that weak annotations subject to high error rates can achieve a similarly high accuracy as state-of-the-art multi-atlas segmentation approaches relying on a large amount of expert manual segmentations. Annotations of this nature can realistically be obtained from a non-expert crowd and can potentially enable crowdsourcing of weak annotation tasks for medical image analysis.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. "Where does it hurt?" -- Dataset and Study on Physician Intent Trajectories in Doctor Patient Dialogues

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0

    A new SOAP-based physician intent taxonomy and labeled dialogue dataset, with benchmarks showing models classify intents accurately but fail to predict SOAP-category transitions.

  2. ZScribbleSeg: A comprehensive segmentation framework with modeling of efficient annotation and maximization of scribble supervision

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    ZScribbleSeg maximizes scribble supervision with efficient annotation forms, spatial regularization, and EM-estimated class ratios to deliver competitive performance on six medical segmentation tasks without full labels.