Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Why rankings of biomedical image analysis competitions should be interpreted with care

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 1806.02051 v2 pith:6VJQ573L submitted 2018-06-06 cs.CV

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

International challenges have become the standard for validation of biomedical image analysis methods. Given their scientific impact, it is surprising that a critical analysis of common practices related to the organization of challenges has not yet been performed. In this paper, we present a comprehensive analysis of biomedical image analysis challenges conducted up to now. We demonstrate the importance of challenges and show that the lack of quality control has critical consequences. First, reproducibility and interpretation of the results is often hampered as only a fraction of relevant information is typically provided. Second, the rank of an algorithm is generally not robust to a number of variables such as the test data used for validation, the ranking scheme applied and the observers that make the reference annotations. To overcome these problems, we recommend best practice guidelines and define open research questions to be addressed in the future.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools