Cargando…

An objective comparison of detection and segmentation algorithms for artefacts in clinical endoscopy

We present a comprehensive analysis of the submissions to the first edition of the Endoscopy Artefact Detection challenge (EAD). Using crowd-sourcing, this initiative is a step towards understanding the limitations of existing state-of-the-art computer vision methods applied to endoscopy and promoti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ali, Sharib, Zhou, Felix, Braden, Barbara, Bailey, Adam, Yang, Suhui, Cheng, Guanju, Zhang, Pengyi, Li, Xiaoqiong, Kayser, Maxime, Soberanis-Mukul, Roger D., Albarqouni, Shadi, Wang, Xiaokang, Wang, Chunqing, Watanabe, Seiryo, Oksuz, Ilkay, Ning, Qingtian, Yang, Shufan, Khan, Mohammad Azam, Gao, Xiaohong W., Realdon, Stefano, Loshchenov, Maxim, Schnabel, Julia A., East, James E., Wagnieres, Georges, Loschenov, Victor B., Grisan, Enrico, Daul, Christian, Blondel, Walter, Rittscher, Jens
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026422/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32066744
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59413-5
_version_ 1783498682581123072
author Ali, Sharib
Zhou, Felix
Braden, Barbara
Bailey, Adam
Yang, Suhui
Cheng, Guanju
Zhang, Pengyi
Li, Xiaoqiong
Kayser, Maxime
Soberanis-Mukul, Roger D.
Albarqouni, Shadi
Wang, Xiaokang
Wang, Chunqing
Watanabe, Seiryo
Oksuz, Ilkay
Ning, Qingtian
Yang, Shufan
Khan, Mohammad Azam
Gao, Xiaohong W.
Realdon, Stefano
Loshchenov, Maxim
Schnabel, Julia A.
East, James E.
Wagnieres, Georges
Loschenov, Victor B.
Grisan, Enrico
Daul, Christian
Blondel, Walter
Rittscher, Jens
author_facet Ali, Sharib
Zhou, Felix
Braden, Barbara
Bailey, Adam
Yang, Suhui
Cheng, Guanju
Zhang, Pengyi
Li, Xiaoqiong
Kayser, Maxime
Soberanis-Mukul, Roger D.
Albarqouni, Shadi
Wang, Xiaokang
Wang, Chunqing
Watanabe, Seiryo
Oksuz, Ilkay
Ning, Qingtian
Yang, Shufan
Khan, Mohammad Azam
Gao, Xiaohong W.
Realdon, Stefano
Loshchenov, Maxim
Schnabel, Julia A.
East, James E.
Wagnieres, Georges
Loschenov, Victor B.
Grisan, Enrico
Daul, Christian
Blondel, Walter
Rittscher, Jens
author_sort Ali, Sharib
collection PubMed
description We present a comprehensive analysis of the submissions to the first edition of the Endoscopy Artefact Detection challenge (EAD). Using crowd-sourcing, this initiative is a step towards understanding the limitations of existing state-of-the-art computer vision methods applied to endoscopy and promoting the development of new approaches suitable for clinical translation. Endoscopy is a routine imaging technique for the detection, diagnosis and treatment of diseases in hollow-organs; the esophagus, stomach, colon, uterus and the bladder. However the nature of these organs prevent imaged tissues to be free of imaging artefacts such as bubbles, pixel saturation, organ specularity and debris, all of which pose substantial challenges for any quantitative analysis. Consequently, the potential for improved clinical outcomes through quantitative assessment of abnormal mucosal surface observed in endoscopy videos is presently not realized accurately. The EAD challenge promotes awareness of and addresses this key bottleneck problem by investigating methods that can accurately classify, localize and segment artefacts in endoscopy frames as critical prerequisite tasks. Using a diverse curated multi-institutional, multi-modality, multi-organ dataset of video frames, the accuracy and performance of 23 algorithms were objectively ranked for artefact detection and segmentation. The ability of methods to generalize to unseen datasets was also evaluated. The best performing methods (top 15%) propose deep learning strategies to reconcile variabilities in artefact appearance with respect to size, modality, occurrence and organ type. However, no single method outperformed across all tasks. Detailed analyses reveal the shortcomings of current training strategies and highlight the need for developing new optimal metrics to accurately quantify the clinical applicability of methods.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7026422
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70264222020-02-26 An objective comparison of detection and segmentation algorithms for artefacts in clinical endoscopy Ali, Sharib Zhou, Felix Braden, Barbara Bailey, Adam Yang, Suhui Cheng, Guanju Zhang, Pengyi Li, Xiaoqiong Kayser, Maxime Soberanis-Mukul, Roger D. Albarqouni, Shadi Wang, Xiaokang Wang, Chunqing Watanabe, Seiryo Oksuz, Ilkay Ning, Qingtian Yang, Shufan Khan, Mohammad Azam Gao, Xiaohong W. Realdon, Stefano Loshchenov, Maxim Schnabel, Julia A. East, James E. Wagnieres, Georges Loschenov, Victor B. Grisan, Enrico Daul, Christian Blondel, Walter Rittscher, Jens Sci Rep Article We present a comprehensive analysis of the submissions to the first edition of the Endoscopy Artefact Detection challenge (EAD). Using crowd-sourcing, this initiative is a step towards understanding the limitations of existing state-of-the-art computer vision methods applied to endoscopy and promoting the development of new approaches suitable for clinical translation. Endoscopy is a routine imaging technique for the detection, diagnosis and treatment of diseases in hollow-organs; the esophagus, stomach, colon, uterus and the bladder. However the nature of these organs prevent imaged tissues to be free of imaging artefacts such as bubbles, pixel saturation, organ specularity and debris, all of which pose substantial challenges for any quantitative analysis. Consequently, the potential for improved clinical outcomes through quantitative assessment of abnormal mucosal surface observed in endoscopy videos is presently not realized accurately. The EAD challenge promotes awareness of and addresses this key bottleneck problem by investigating methods that can accurately classify, localize and segment artefacts in endoscopy frames as critical prerequisite tasks. Using a diverse curated multi-institutional, multi-modality, multi-organ dataset of video frames, the accuracy and performance of 23 algorithms were objectively ranked for artefact detection and segmentation. The ability of methods to generalize to unseen datasets was also evaluated. The best performing methods (top 15%) propose deep learning strategies to reconcile variabilities in artefact appearance with respect to size, modality, occurrence and organ type. However, no single method outperformed across all tasks. Detailed analyses reveal the shortcomings of current training strategies and highlight the need for developing new optimal metrics to accurately quantify the clinical applicability of methods. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-02-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7026422/ /pubmed/32066744 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59413-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Ali, Sharib
Zhou, Felix
Braden, Barbara
Bailey, Adam
Yang, Suhui
Cheng, Guanju
Zhang, Pengyi
Li, Xiaoqiong
Kayser, Maxime
Soberanis-Mukul, Roger D.
Albarqouni, Shadi
Wang, Xiaokang
Wang, Chunqing
Watanabe, Seiryo
Oksuz, Ilkay
Ning, Qingtian
Yang, Shufan
Khan, Mohammad Azam
Gao, Xiaohong W.
Realdon, Stefano
Loshchenov, Maxim
Schnabel, Julia A.
East, James E.
Wagnieres, Georges
Loschenov, Victor B.
Grisan, Enrico
Daul, Christian
Blondel, Walter
Rittscher, Jens
An objective comparison of detection and segmentation algorithms for artefacts in clinical endoscopy
title An objective comparison of detection and segmentation algorithms for artefacts in clinical endoscopy
title_full An objective comparison of detection and segmentation algorithms for artefacts in clinical endoscopy
title_fullStr An objective comparison of detection and segmentation algorithms for artefacts in clinical endoscopy
title_full_unstemmed An objective comparison of detection and segmentation algorithms for artefacts in clinical endoscopy
title_short An objective comparison of detection and segmentation algorithms for artefacts in clinical endoscopy
title_sort objective comparison of detection and segmentation algorithms for artefacts in clinical endoscopy
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026422/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32066744
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59413-5
work_keys_str_mv AT alisharib anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT zhoufelix anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT bradenbarbara anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT baileyadam anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT yangsuhui anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT chengguanju anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT zhangpengyi anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT lixiaoqiong anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT kaysermaxime anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT soberanismukulrogerd anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT albarqounishadi anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT wangxiaokang anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT wangchunqing anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT watanabeseiryo anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT oksuzilkay anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT ningqingtian anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT yangshufan anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT khanmohammadazam anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT gaoxiaohongw anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT realdonstefano anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT loshchenovmaxim anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT schnabeljuliaa anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT eastjamese anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT wagnieresgeorges anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT loschenovvictorb anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT grisanenrico anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT daulchristian anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT blondelwalter anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT rittscherjens anobjectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT alisharib objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT zhoufelix objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT bradenbarbara objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT baileyadam objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT yangsuhui objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT chengguanju objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT zhangpengyi objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT lixiaoqiong objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT kaysermaxime objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT soberanismukulrogerd objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT albarqounishadi objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT wangxiaokang objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT wangchunqing objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT watanabeseiryo objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT oksuzilkay objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT ningqingtian objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT yangshufan objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT khanmohammadazam objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT gaoxiaohongw objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT realdonstefano objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT loshchenovmaxim objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT schnabeljuliaa objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT eastjamese objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT wagnieresgeorges objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT loschenovvictorb objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT grisanenrico objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT daulchristian objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT blondelwalter objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy
AT rittscherjens objectivecomparisonofdetectionandsegmentationalgorithmsforartefactsinclinicalendoscopy