8,290 research outputs found

    Crowd disagreement about medical images is informative

    Get PDF
    Classifiers for medical image analysis are often trained with a single consensus label, based on combining labels given by experts or crowds. However, disagreement between annotators may be informative, and thus removing it may not be the best strategy. As a proof of concept, we predict whether a skin lesion from the ISIC 2017 dataset is a melanoma or not, based on crowd annotations of visual characteristics of that lesion. We compare using the mean annotations, illustrating consensus, to standard deviations and other distribution moments, illustrating disagreement. We show that the mean annotations perform best, but that the disagreement measures are still informative. We also make the crowd annotations used in this paper available at \url{https://figshare.com/s/5cbbce14647b66286544}.Comment: Accepted for publication at MICCAI LABELS 201

    Empirical Methodology for Crowdsourcing Ground Truth

    Full text link
    The process of gathering ground truth data through human annotation is a major bottleneck in the use of information extraction methods for populating the Semantic Web. Crowdsourcing-based approaches are gaining popularity in the attempt to solve the issues related to volume of data and lack of annotators. Typically these practices use inter-annotator agreement as a measure of quality. However, in many domains, such as event detection, there is ambiguity in the data, as well as a multitude of perspectives of the information examples. We present an empirically derived methodology for efficiently gathering of ground truth data in a diverse set of use cases covering a variety of domains and annotation tasks. Central to our approach is the use of CrowdTruth metrics that capture inter-annotator disagreement. We show that measuring disagreement is essential for acquiring a high quality ground truth. We achieve this by comparing the quality of the data aggregated with CrowdTruth metrics with majority vote, over a set of diverse crowdsourcing tasks: Medical Relation Extraction, Twitter Event Identification, News Event Extraction and Sound Interpretation. We also show that an increased number of crowd workers leads to growth and stabilization in the quality of annotations, going against the usual practice of employing a small number of annotators.Comment: in publication at the Semantic Web Journa

    Precise Proximal Femur Fracture Classification for Interactive Training and Surgical Planning

    Full text link
    We demonstrate the feasibility of a fully automatic computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) tool, based on deep learning, that localizes and classifies proximal femur fractures on X-ray images according to the AO classification. The proposed framework aims to improve patient treatment planning and provide support for the training of trauma surgeon residents. A database of 1347 clinical radiographic studies was collected. Radiologists and trauma surgeons annotated all fractures with bounding boxes, and provided a classification according to the AO standard. The proposed CAD tool for the classification of radiographs into types "A", "B" and "not-fractured", reaches a F1-score of 87% and AUC of 0.95, when classifying fractures versus not-fractured cases it improves up to 94% and 0.98. Prior localization of the fracture results in an improvement with respect to full image classification. 100% of the predicted centers of the region of interest are contained in the manually provided bounding boxes. The system retrieves on average 9 relevant images (from the same class) out of 10 cases. Our CAD scheme localizes, detects and further classifies proximal femur fractures achieving results comparable to expert-level and state-of-the-art performance. Our auxiliary localization model was highly accurate predicting the region of interest in the radiograph. We further investigated several strategies of verification for its adoption into the daily clinical routine. A sensitivity analysis of the size of the ROI and image retrieval as a clinical use case were presented.Comment: Accepted at IPCAI 2020 and IJCAR

    Towards Accountable AI: Hybrid Human-Machine Analyses for Characterizing System Failure

    Full text link
    As machine learning systems move from computer-science laboratories into the open world, their accountability becomes a high priority problem. Accountability requires deep understanding of system behavior and its failures. Current evaluation methods such as single-score error metrics and confusion matrices provide aggregate views of system performance that hide important shortcomings. Understanding details about failures is important for identifying pathways for refinement, communicating the reliability of systems in different settings, and for specifying appropriate human oversight and engagement. Characterization of failures and shortcomings is particularly complex for systems composed of multiple machine learned components. For such systems, existing evaluation methods have limited expressiveness in describing and explaining the relationship among input content, the internal states of system components, and final output quality. We present Pandora, a set of hybrid human-machine methods and tools for describing and explaining system failures. Pandora leverages both human and system-generated observations to summarize conditions of system malfunction with respect to the input content and system architecture. We share results of a case study with a machine learning pipeline for image captioning that show how detailed performance views can be beneficial for analysis and debugging

    Learning from disagreement: a survey

    Get PDF
    Many tasks in Natural Language Processing (nlp) and Computer Vision (cv) offer evidence that humans disagree, from objective tasks such as part-of-speech tagging to more subjective tasks such as classifying an image or deciding whether a proposition follows from certain premises. While most learning in artificial intelligence (ai) still relies on the assumption that a single (gold) interpretation exists for each item, a growing body of research aims to develop learning methods that do not rely on this assumption. In this survey, we review the evidence for disagreements on nlp and cv tasks, focusing on tasks for which substantial datasets containing this information have been created. We discuss the most popular approaches to training models from datasets containing multiple judgments potentially in disagreement. We systematically compare these different approaches by training them with each of the available datasets, considering several ways to evaluate the resulting models. Finally, we discuss the results in depth, focusing on four key research questions, and assess how the type of evaluation and the characteristics of a dataset determine the answers to these questions. Our results suggest, first of all, that even if we abandon the assumption of a gold standard, it is still essential to reach a consensus on how to evaluate models. This is because the relative performance of the various training methods is critically affected by the chosen form of evaluation. Secondly, we observed a strong dataset effect. With substantial datasets, providing many judgments by high-quality coders for each item, training directly with soft labels achieved better results than training from aggregated or even gold labels. This result holds for both hard and soft evaluation. But when the above conditions do not hold, leveraging both gold and soft labels generally achieved the best results in the hard evaluation. All datasets and models employed in this paper are freely available as supplementary materials

    ENHANCE (ENriching Health data by ANnotations of Crowd and Experts): A case study for skin lesion classification

    Get PDF
    We present ENHANCE, an open dataset with multiple annotations to complement the existing ISIC and PH2 skin lesion classification datasets. This dataset contains annotations of visual ABC (asymmetry, border, colour) features from non-expert annotation sources: undergraduate students, crowd workers from Amazon MTurk and classic image processing algorithms. In this paper we first analyse the correlations between the annotations and the diagnostic label of the lesion, as well as study the agreement between different annotation sources. Overall we find weak correlations of non-expert annotations with the diagnostic label, and low agreement between different annotation sources. We then study multi-task learning (MTL) with the annotations as additional labels, and show that non-expert annotations can improve (ensembles of) state-of-the-art convolutional neural networks via MTL. We hope that our dataset can be used in further research into multiple annotations and/or MTL. All data and models are available on Github: https://github.com/raumannsr/ENHANCE

    Human Computation and Convergence

    Full text link
    Humans are the most effective integrators and producers of information, directly and through the use of information-processing inventions. As these inventions become increasingly sophisticated, the substantive role of humans in processing information will tend toward capabilities that derive from our most complex cognitive processes, e.g., abstraction, creativity, and applied world knowledge. Through the advancement of human computation - methods that leverage the respective strengths of humans and machines in distributed information-processing systems - formerly discrete processes will combine synergistically into increasingly integrated and complex information processing systems. These new, collective systems will exhibit an unprecedented degree of predictive accuracy in modeling physical and techno-social processes, and may ultimately coalesce into a single unified predictive organism, with the capacity to address societies most wicked problems and achieve planetary homeostasis.Comment: Pre-publication draft of chapter. 24 pages, 3 figures; added references to page 1 and 3, and corrected typ
    • …
    corecore