Cargando…
The Accuracy and Reliability of Crowdsource Annotations of Digital Retinal Images
PURPOSE: Crowdsourcing is based on outsourcing computationally intensive tasks to numerous individuals in the online community who have no formal training. Our aim was to develop a novel online tool designed to facilitate large-scale annotation of digital retinal images, and to assess the accuracy o...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5032847/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27668130 http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/tvst.5.5.6 |
_version_ | 1782455074215165952 |
---|---|
author | Mitry, Danny Zutis, Kris Dhillon, Baljean Peto, Tunde Hayat, Shabina Khaw, Kay-Tee Morgan, James E. Moncur, Wendy Trucco, Emanuele Foster, Paul J. |
author_facet | Mitry, Danny Zutis, Kris Dhillon, Baljean Peto, Tunde Hayat, Shabina Khaw, Kay-Tee Morgan, James E. Moncur, Wendy Trucco, Emanuele Foster, Paul J. |
author_sort | Mitry, Danny |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Crowdsourcing is based on outsourcing computationally intensive tasks to numerous individuals in the online community who have no formal training. Our aim was to develop a novel online tool designed to facilitate large-scale annotation of digital retinal images, and to assess the accuracy of crowdsource grading using this tool, comparing it to expert classification. METHODS: We used 100 retinal fundus photograph images with predetermined disease criteria selected by two experts from a large cohort study. The Amazon Mechanical Turk Web platform was used to drive traffic to our site so anonymous workers could perform a classification and annotation task of the fundus photographs in our dataset after a short training exercise. Three groups were assessed: masters only, nonmasters only and nonmasters with compulsory training. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots for all classifications compared to expert grading, and used the Dice coefficient and consensus threshold to assess annotation accuracy. RESULTS: In total, we received 5389 annotations for 84 images (excluding 16 training images) in 2 weeks. A specificity and sensitivity of 71% (95% confidence interval [CI], 69%–74%) and 87% (95% CI, 86%–88%) was achieved for all classifications. The AUC in this study for all classifications combined was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91–0.96). For image annotation, a maximal Dice coefficient (∼0.6) was achieved with a consensus threshold of 0.25. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the hypothesis that annotation of abnormalities in retinal images by ophthalmologically naive individuals is comparable to expert annotation. The highest AUC and agreement with expert annotation was achieved in the nonmasters with compulsory training group. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: The use of crowdsourcing as a technique for retinal image analysis may be comparable to expert graders and has the potential to deliver timely, accurate, and cost-effective image analysis. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5032847 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-50328472016-09-23 The Accuracy and Reliability of Crowdsource Annotations of Digital Retinal Images Mitry, Danny Zutis, Kris Dhillon, Baljean Peto, Tunde Hayat, Shabina Khaw, Kay-Tee Morgan, James E. Moncur, Wendy Trucco, Emanuele Foster, Paul J. Transl Vis Sci Technol Articles PURPOSE: Crowdsourcing is based on outsourcing computationally intensive tasks to numerous individuals in the online community who have no formal training. Our aim was to develop a novel online tool designed to facilitate large-scale annotation of digital retinal images, and to assess the accuracy of crowdsource grading using this tool, comparing it to expert classification. METHODS: We used 100 retinal fundus photograph images with predetermined disease criteria selected by two experts from a large cohort study. The Amazon Mechanical Turk Web platform was used to drive traffic to our site so anonymous workers could perform a classification and annotation task of the fundus photographs in our dataset after a short training exercise. Three groups were assessed: masters only, nonmasters only and nonmasters with compulsory training. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots for all classifications compared to expert grading, and used the Dice coefficient and consensus threshold to assess annotation accuracy. RESULTS: In total, we received 5389 annotations for 84 images (excluding 16 training images) in 2 weeks. A specificity and sensitivity of 71% (95% confidence interval [CI], 69%–74%) and 87% (95% CI, 86%–88%) was achieved for all classifications. The AUC in this study for all classifications combined was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91–0.96). For image annotation, a maximal Dice coefficient (∼0.6) was achieved with a consensus threshold of 0.25. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the hypothesis that annotation of abnormalities in retinal images by ophthalmologically naive individuals is comparable to expert annotation. The highest AUC and agreement with expert annotation was achieved in the nonmasters with compulsory training group. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: The use of crowdsourcing as a technique for retinal image analysis may be comparable to expert graders and has the potential to deliver timely, accurate, and cost-effective image analysis. The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2016-09-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5032847/ /pubmed/27668130 http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/tvst.5.5.6 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
spellingShingle | Articles Mitry, Danny Zutis, Kris Dhillon, Baljean Peto, Tunde Hayat, Shabina Khaw, Kay-Tee Morgan, James E. Moncur, Wendy Trucco, Emanuele Foster, Paul J. The Accuracy and Reliability of Crowdsource Annotations of Digital Retinal Images |
title | The Accuracy and Reliability of Crowdsource Annotations of Digital Retinal Images |
title_full | The Accuracy and Reliability of Crowdsource Annotations of Digital Retinal Images |
title_fullStr | The Accuracy and Reliability of Crowdsource Annotations of Digital Retinal Images |
title_full_unstemmed | The Accuracy and Reliability of Crowdsource Annotations of Digital Retinal Images |
title_short | The Accuracy and Reliability of Crowdsource Annotations of Digital Retinal Images |
title_sort | accuracy and reliability of crowdsource annotations of digital retinal images |
topic | Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5032847/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27668130 http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/tvst.5.5.6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mitrydanny theaccuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages AT zutiskris theaccuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages AT dhillonbaljean theaccuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages AT petotunde theaccuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages AT hayatshabina theaccuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages AT khawkaytee theaccuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages AT morganjamese theaccuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages AT moncurwendy theaccuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages AT truccoemanuele theaccuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages AT fosterpaulj theaccuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages AT theaccuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages AT mitrydanny accuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages AT zutiskris accuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages AT dhillonbaljean accuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages AT petotunde accuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages AT hayatshabina accuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages AT khawkaytee accuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages AT morganjamese accuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages AT moncurwendy accuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages AT truccoemanuele accuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages AT fosterpaulj accuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages AT accuracyandreliabilityofcrowdsourceannotationsofdigitalretinalimages |