ResearchTrend.AI
  • Papers
  • Communities
  • Events
  • Blog
  • Pricing
Papers
Communities
Social Events
Terms and Conditions
Pricing
Parameter LabParameter LabTwitterGitHubLinkedInBlueskyYoutube

© 2025 ResearchTrend.AI, All rights reserved.

  1. Home
  2. Papers
  3. 1806.02051
13
297

Why rankings of biomedical image analysis competitions should be interpreted with care

6 June 2018
Lena Maier-Hein
Matthias Eisenmann
Annika Reinke
Sinan Onogur
Marko Stankovic
Patrick Scholz
Tal Arbel
Hrvoje Bogunović
A. Bradley
A. Carass
Carolin Feldmann
Alejandro F. Frangi
Peter M. Full
Bram van Ginneken
Allan Hanbury
Katrin Honauer
Michal Kozubek
Bennett A. Landman
Keno Marz
Oskar Maier
Klaus Maier-Hein
Bjoern H. Menze
Henning Muller
Peter Neher
W. Niessen
Nasir M. Rajpoot
G. Sharp
K. Sirinukunwattana
Stefanie Speidel
C. Stock
Danail Stoyanov
A. Taha
F. van der Sommen
Ching-Wei Wang
M. Weber
G. Zheng
Pierre Jannin
A. Kopp-Schneider
ArXivPDFHTML
Abstract

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.

View on arXiv
Comments on this paper