Veronika Cheplygina

The advancement of machine learning algorithms in medical image analysis requires the expansion of training datasets. A popular and cost-effective approach is automated annotation extraction from free-text medical reports, primarily due to the high costs associated with expert clinicians annotating medical images, such as chest X-rays. However, it has been shown that the resulting datasets are susceptible to biases and shortcuts. Another strategy to increase the size of a dataset is crowdsourcing, a widely adopted practice in general computer vision with some success in medical image analysis. In a similar vein to crowdsourcing, we enhance two publicly available chest X-ray datasets by incorporating non-expert annotations. However, instead of using diagnostic labels, we annotate shortcuts in the form of tubes. We collect 3.5k chest drain annotations for NIH-CXR14, and 1k annotations for four different tube types in PadChest, and create the Non-Expert Annotations of Tubes in X-rays (NEATX) dataset. We train a chest drain detector with the non-expert annotations that generalizes well to expert labels. Moreover, we compare our annotations to those provided by experts and show “moderate” to “almost perfect” agreement. Finally, we present a pathology agreement study to raise awareness about the quality of ground truth annotations. We make our dataset available on Zenodo at https://zenodo.org/records/14944064and our code available at https://github.com/purrlab/chestxr-label-reliability.

Datasets play a critical role in medical imaging research, yet issues such as label quality, shortcuts, and metadata are often overlooked. This lack of attention may harm the generalizability of algorithms and, consequently, negatively impact patient outcomes. While existing medical imaging literature reviews mostly focus on machine learning (ML) methods, with only a few focusing on datasets for specific applications, these reviews remain static – they are published once and not updated thereafter. This fails to account for emerging evidence, such as biases, shortcuts, and additional annotations that other researchers may contribute after the dataset is published. We refer to these newly discovered findings of datasets as research artifacts. To address this gap, we propose a living review that continuously tracks public datasets and their associated research artifacts across multiple medical imaging applications. Our approach includes a framework for the living review to monitor data documentation artifacts, and an SQL database to visualize the citation relationships between research artifact and dataset. Lastly, we discuss key considerations for creating medical imaging datasets, review best practices for data annotation, discuss the significance of shortcuts and demographic diversity, and emphasize the importance of managing datasets throughout their entire lifecycle. Our demo is publicly available at http://inthepicture.itu.dk/.

In many pattern recognition problems, a single feature vector is not sufficient to describe an object. In multiple instance learning (MIL), objects are represented by sets (bags) of feature vectors (instances). This requires an adaptation of standard supervised classifiers in order to train and evaluate on these bags of instances. Like for supervised classification, several benchmark datasets and numerous classifiers are available for MIL. When performing a comparison of different MIL classifiers, it is important to understand the differences of the datasets, used in the comparison. Seemingly different (based on factors such as dimensionality) datasets may elicit very similar behaviour in classifiers, and vice versa. This has implications for what kind of conclusions may be drawn from the comparison results. We aim to give an overview of the variability of available benchmark datasets and some popular MIL classifiers. We use a dataset dissimilarity measure, based on the differences between the ROC-curves obtained by different classifiers, and embed this dataset dissimilarity matrix into a low-dimensional space. Our results show that conceptually similar datasets can behave very differently. We therefore recommend examining such dataset characteristics when making comparisons between existing and new MIL classifiers. Data and other resources are available at http://www.miproblems.org.

Many classification problems can be difficult to formulate directly in terms of the traditional supervised setting, where both training and test samples are individual feature vectors. There are cases in which samples are better described by sets of feature vectors, that labels are only available for sets rather than individual samples, or, if individual labels are available, that these are not independent. To better deal with such problems, several extensions of supervised learning have been proposed, where either training and/or test objects are sets of feature vectors. However, having been proposed rather independently of each other, their mutual similarities and differences have hitherto not been mapped out. In this work, we provide an overview of such learning scenarios, propose a taxonomy to illustrate the relationships between them, and discuss directions for further research in these areas.

Multiple instance learning (MIL) is concerned with learning from sets (bags) of objects (instances), where the individual instance labels are ambiguous. In this setting, supervised learning cannot be applied directly. Often, specialized MIL methods learn by making additional assumptions about the relationship of the bag labels and instance labels. Such assumptions may fit a particular dataset, but do not generalize to the whole range of MIL problems. Other MIL methods shift the focus of assumptions from the labels to the overall (dis)similarity of bags, and therefore learn from bags directly. We propose to represent each bag by a vector of its dissimilarities to other bags in the training set, and treat these dissimilarities as a feature representation. We show several alternatives to define a dissimilarity between bags and discuss which definitions are more suitable for particular MIL problems. The experimental results show that the proposed approach is computationally inexpensive, yet very competitive with state-of-the-art algorithms on a wide range of MIL datasets.