Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Common Limitations of Image Processing Metrics: A Picture Story

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 2104.05642 v8 pith:42IVJ7JS submitted 2021-04-12 eess.IV cs.CV

Annika Reinke , Minu D. Tizabi , Carole H. Sudre , Matthias Eisenmann , Tim Rädsch , Michael Baumgartner , Laura Acion , Michela Antonelli
show 85 more authors
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords imagemetricsanalysisdisregardperformanceautomaticbiomedicalgiven
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

While the importance of automatic image analysis is continuously increasing, recent meta-research revealed major flaws with respect to algorithm validation. Performance metrics are particularly key for meaningful, objective, and transparent performance assessment and validation of the used automatic algorithms, but relatively little attention has been given to the practical pitfalls when using specific metrics for a given image analysis task. These are typically related to (1) the disregard of inherent metric properties, such as the behaviour in the presence of class imbalance or small target structures, (2) the disregard of inherent data set properties, such as the non-independence of the test cases, and (3) the disregard of the actual biomedical domain interest that the metrics should reflect. This living dynamically document has the purpose to illustrate important limitations of performance metrics commonly applied in the field of image analysis. In this context, it focuses on biomedical image analysis problems that can be phrased as image-level classification, semantic segmentation, instance segmentation, or object detection task. The current version is based on a Delphi process on metrics conducted by an international consortium of image analysis experts from more than 60 institutions worldwide.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 87 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Current validation practice undermines surgical AI development

    q-bio.OT 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A multi-stage Delphi consensus with 92 experts catalogs widespread validation pitfalls in surgical AI video analysis across data, metrics, and reporting, supported by a systematic review and empirical experiments.

  2. EPRA U-Net: An Efficient Pyramid Residual Attention Framework for Accurate Infarct Segmentation in Diffusion-Weighted MRI

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A hybrid EfficientNet-R2-ASPP-dual-attention U-Net with Tversky loss reduces missed acute infarcts on DWI relative to common baselines on a 167-patient in-house dataset.

  3. Pixel-wise Modulated Dice Loss for Medical Image Segmentation

    eess.IV 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A pixel-wise modulated Dice loss, weighting each pixel by its prediction error, reports improved segmentation accuracy on Kvasir, ACDC, and MSSEG benchmarks.

Pith tools