Michal Kozubek

Lena Maier-Hein, Annika Reinke, Patrick Godau et al. · utoronto

Increasing evidence shows that flaws in machine learning (ML) algorithm validation are an underestimated global problem. Particularly in automatic biomedical image analysis, chosen performance metrics often do not reflect the domain interest, thus failing to adequately measure scientific progress and hindering translation of ML techniques into practice. To overcome this, our large international expert consortium created Metrics Reloaded, a comprehensive framework guiding researchers in the problem-aware selection of metrics. Following the convergence of ML methodology across application domains, Metrics Reloaded fosters the convergence of validation methodology. The framework was developed in a multi-stage Delphi process and is based on the novel concept of a problem fingerprint - a structured representation of the given problem that captures all aspects that are relevant for metric selection, from the domain interest to the properties of the target structure(s), data set and algorithm output. Based on the problem fingerprint, users are guided through the process of choosing and applying appropriate validation metrics while being made aware of potential pitfalls. Metrics Reloaded targets image analysis problems that can be interpreted as a classification task at image, object or pixel level, namely image-level classification, object detection, semantic segmentation, and instance segmentation tasks. To improve the user experience, we implemented the framework in the Metrics Reloaded online tool, which also provides a point of access to explore weaknesses, strengths and specific recommendations for the most common validation metrics. The broad applicability of our framework across domains is demonstrated by an instantiation for various biological and medical image analysis use cases.

Sarthak Pati, Ujjwal Baid, Brandon Edwards et al.

Although machine learning (ML) has shown promise in numerous domains, there are concerns about generalizability to out-of-sample data. This is currently addressed by centrally sharing ample, and importantly diverse, data from multiple sites. However, such centralization is challenging to scale (or even not feasible) due to various limitations. Federated ML (FL) provides an alternative to train accurate and generalizable ML models, by only sharing numerical model updates. Here we present findings from the largest FL study to-date, involving data from 71 healthcare institutions across 6 continents, to generate an automatic tumor boundary detector for the rare disease of glioblastoma, utilizing the largest dataset of such patients ever used in the literature (25,256 MRI scans from 6,314 patients). We demonstrate a 33% improvement over a publicly trained model to delineate the surgically targetable tumor, and 23% improvement over the tumor's entire extent. We anticipate our study to: 1) enable more studies in healthcare informed by large and diverse data, ensuring meaningful results for rare diseases and underrepresented populations, 2) facilitate further quantitative analyses for glioblastoma via performance optimization of our consensus model for eventual public release, and 3) demonstrate the effectiveness of FL at such scale and task complexity as a paradigm shift for multi-site collaborations, alleviating the need for data sharing.

Matthias Eisenmann, Annika Reinke, Vivienn Weru et al. · utoronto

The number of international benchmarking competitions is steadily increasing in various fields of machine learning (ML) research and practice. So far, however, little is known about the common practice as well as bottlenecks faced by the community in tackling the research questions posed. To shed light on the status quo of algorithm development in the specific field of biomedical imaging analysis, we designed an international survey that was issued to all participants of challenges conducted in conjunction with the IEEE ISBI 2021 and MICCAI 2021 conferences (80 competitions in total). The survey covered participants' expertise and working environments, their chosen strategies, as well as algorithm characteristics. A median of 72% challenge participants took part in the survey. According to our results, knowledge exchange was the primary incentive (70%) for participation, while the reception of prize money played only a minor role (16%). While a median of 80 working hours was spent on method development, a large portion of participants stated that they did not have enough time for method development (32%). 25% perceived the infrastructure to be a bottleneck. Overall, 94% of all solutions were deep learning-based. Of these, 84% were based on standard architectures. 43% of the respondents reported that the data samples (e.g., images) were too large to be processed at once. This was most commonly addressed by patch-based training (69%), downsampling (37%), and solving 3D analysis tasks as a series of 2D tasks. K-fold cross-validation on the training set was performed by only 37% of the participants and only 50% of the participants performed ensembling based on multiple identical models (61%) or heterogeneous models (39%). 48% of the respondents applied postprocessing steps.

Annika Reinke, Minu D. Tizabi, Michael Baumgartner et al.

Validation metrics are key for the reliable tracking of scientific progress and for bridging the current chasm between artificial intelligence (AI) research and its translation into practice. However, increasing evidence shows that particularly in image analysis, metrics are often chosen inadequately in relation to the underlying research problem. This could be attributed to a lack of accessibility of metric-related knowledge: While taking into account the individual strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of validation metrics is a critical prerequisite to making educated choices, the relevant knowledge is currently scattered and poorly accessible to individual researchers. Based on a multi-stage Delphi process conducted by a multidisciplinary expert consortium as well as extensive community feedback, the present work provides the first reliable and comprehensive common point of access to information on pitfalls related to validation metrics in image analysis. Focusing on biomedical image analysis but with the potential of transfer to other fields, the addressed pitfalls generalize across application domains and are categorized according to a newly created, domain-agnostic taxonomy. To facilitate comprehension, illustrations and specific examples accompany each pitfall. As a structured body of information accessible to researchers of all levels of expertise, this work enhances global comprehension of a key topic in image analysis validation.

Matthias Eisenmann, Annika Reinke, Vivienn Weru et al.

International benchmarking competitions have become fundamental for the comparative performance assessment of image analysis methods. However, little attention has been given to investigating what can be learnt from these competitions. Do they really generate scientific progress? What are common and successful participation strategies? What makes a solution superior to a competing method? To address this gap in the literature, we performed a multi-center study with all 80 competitions that were conducted in the scope of IEEE ISBI 2021 and MICCAI 2021. Statistical analyses performed based on comprehensive descriptions of the submitted algorithms linked to their rank as well as the underlying participation strategies revealed common characteristics of winning solutions. These typically include the use of multi-task learning (63%) and/or multi-stage pipelines (61%), and a focus on augmentation (100%), image preprocessing (97%), data curation (79%), and postprocessing (66%). The "typical" lead of a winning team is a computer scientist with a doctoral degree, five years of experience in biomedical image analysis, and four years of experience in deep learning. Two core general development strategies stood out for highly-ranked teams: the reflection of the metrics in the method design and the focus on analyzing and handling failure cases. According to the organizers, 43% of the winning algorithms exceeded the state of the art but only 11% completely solved the respective domain problem. The insights of our study could help researchers (1) improve algorithm development strategies when approaching new problems, and (2) focus on open research questions revealed by this work.

Annika Reinke, Evangelia Christodoulou, Sthuthi Sadananda et al.

Benchmarking competitions are central to the development of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical imaging, defining performance standards and shaping methodological progress. However, it remains unclear whether these benchmarks provide data that are sufficiently representative, accessible, and reusable to support clinically meaningful AI. In this work, we assess fairness along two complementary dimensions: (1) whether challenge datasets are representative of real-world clinical diversity, and (2) whether they are accessible and legally reusable in line with the FAIR principles. To address this question, we conducted a large-scale systematic study of 241 biomedical image analysis challenges comprising 458 tasks across 19 imaging modalities. Our findings show substantial biases in dataset composition, including geographic location, modality-, and problem type-related biases, indicating that current benchmarks do not adequately reflect real-world clinical diversity. Despite their widespread influence, challenge datasets were frequently constrained by restrictive or ambiguous access conditions, inconsistent or non-compliant licensing practices, and incomplete documentation, limiting reproducibility and long-term reuse. Together, these shortcomings expose foundational fairness limitations in our benchmarking ecosystem and highlight a disconnect between leaderboard success and clinical relevance.

Roman Stoklasa, Ioannis Stathopoulos, Efstratios Karavasilis et al.

In clinical practice, we often see significant delays between MRI scans and the diagnosis made by radiologists, even for severe cases. In some cases, this may be caused by the lack of additional information and clues, so even the severe cases need to wait in the queue for diagnosis. This can be avoided if there is an automatic software tool, which would supplement additional information, alerting radiologists that the particular patient may be a severe case. We are presenting an automatic brain MRI Screening Tool and we are demonstrating its capabilities for detecting tumor-like pathologies. It is the first version on the path toward a robust multi-pathology screening solution. The tool supports Federated Learning, so multiple institutions may contribute to the model without disclosing their private data.

Katinka Becker, Maximilian P. Oppelt, Tobias S. Zech et al.

Machine learning (ML) in medicine has transitioned from research to concrete applications aimed at supporting several medical purposes like therapy selection, monitoring and treatment. Acceptance and effective adoption by clinicians and patients, as well as regulatory approval, require evidence of trustworthiness. A major factor for the development of trustworthy AI is the quantification of data quality for AI model training and testing. We have recently proposed the METRIC-framework for systematically evaluating the suitability (fit-for-purpose) of data for medical ML for a given task. Here, we operationalize this theoretical framework by introducing a collection of data quality metrics - the metric library - for practically measuring data quality dimensions. For each metric, we provide a metric card with the most important information, including definition, applicability, examples, pitfalls and recommendations, to support the understanding and implementation of these metrics. Furthermore, we discuss strategies and provide decision trees for choosing an appropriate set of data quality metrics from the metric library given specific use cases. We demonstrate the impact of our approach exemplarily on the PTB-XL ECG-dataset. This is a first step to enable fit-for-purpose evaluation of training and test data in practice as the base for establishing trustworthy AI in medicine.

Evangelia Christodoulou, Annika Reinke, Pascaline Andrè et al.

Performance comparisons are fundamental in medical imaging Artificial Intelligence (AI) research, often driving claims of superiority based on relative improvements in common performance metrics. However, such claims frequently rely solely on empirical mean performance. In this paper, we investigate whether newly proposed methods genuinely outperform the state of the art by analyzing a representative cohort of medical imaging papers. We quantify the probability of false claims based on a Bayesian approach that leverages reported results alongside empirically estimated model congruence to estimate whether the relative ranking of methods is likely to have occurred by chance. According to our results, the majority (>80%) of papers claims outperformance when introducing a new method. Our analysis further revealed a high probability (>5%) of false outperformance claims in 86% of classification papers and 53% of segmentation papers. These findings highlight a critical flaw in current benchmarking practices: claims of outperformance in medical imaging AI are frequently unsubstantiated, posing a risk of misdirecting future research efforts.

Nikomidisz Eftimiu, Michal Kozubek

Automatic detection and tracking of cells in microscopy images are major applications of computer vision technologies in both biomedical research and clinical practice. Though machine learning methods are increasingly common in these fields, classical algorithms still offer significant advantages for both tasks, including better explainability, faster computation, lower hardware requirements and more consistent performance. In this paper, we present a novel approach based on gravitational force fields that can compete with, and potentially outperform modern machine learning models when applied to fluorescence microscopy images. This method includes detection, segmentation, and tracking elements, with the results demonstrated on a Cell Tracking Challenge dataset.

Annika Reinke, Minu D. Tizabi, Carole H. Sudre et al.

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.

Lena Maier-Hein, Annika Reinke, Michal Kozubek et al.

The number of biomedical image analysis challenges organized per year is steadily increasing. These international competitions have the purpose of benchmarking algorithms on common data sets, typically to identify the best method for a given problem. Recent research, however, revealed that common practice related to challenge reporting does not allow for adequate interpretation and reproducibility of results. To address the discrepancy between the impact of challenges and the quality (control), the Biomedical I mage Analysis ChallengeS (BIAS) initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of challenges. The BIAS statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a biomedical image analysis challenge regardless of field of application, image modality or task category assessed. This article describes how the BIAS statement was developed and presents a checklist which authors of biomedical image analysis challenges are encouraged to include in their submission when giving a paper on a challenge into review. The purpose of the checklist is to standardize and facilitate the review process and raise interpretability and reproducibility of challenge results by making relevant information explicit.

Lena Maier-Hein, Matthias Eisenmann, Annika Reinke et al.

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.