mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

How can we learn (more) from challenges? A statistical approach to driving future algorithm development

arXiv 2106.09302 ↗First posted 17 Jun 2021cs.CVcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Challenges have become the state-of-the-art approach to benchmark image analysis algorithms in a comparative manner. While the validation on identical data sets was a great step forward, results analysis is often restricted to pure ranking tables, leaving relevant questions unanswered. Specifically, little effort has been put into the systematic investigation on what characterizes images in which state-of-the-art algorithms fail. To address this gap in the literature, we (1) present a statistical framework for learning from challenges and (2) instantiate it for the specific task of instrument instance segmentation in laparoscopic videos. Our framework relies on the semantic meta data annotation of images, which serves as foundation for a General Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) analysis. Based on 51,542 meta data annotations performed on 2,728 images, we applied our approach to the results of the Robust Medical Instrument Segmentation Challenge (ROBUST-MIS) challenge 2019 and revealed underexposure, motion and occlusion of instruments as well as the presence of smoke or other objects in the background as major sources of algorithm failure. Our subsequent method development, tailored to the specific remaining issues, yielded a deep learning model with state-of-the-art overall performance and specific strengths in the processing of images in which previous methods tended to fail. Due to the objectivity and generic applicability of our approach, it could become a valuable tool for validation in the field of medical image analysis and beyond. and segmentation of small, crossing, moving and transparent instrument(s) (parts).

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Jun 2021.

Builds on

21 of 47 references.

References · 21

  1. 2015U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentationcited by 19,604
  2. 2017Mask R-CNNcited by 7,259
  3. 2016FlowNet 2.0: Evolution of Optical Flow Estimation with Deep Networkscited by 780
  4. 2017UnFlow: Unsupervised Learning of Optical Flow with a Bidirectional Census Losscited by 202
  5. 20192017 Robotic Instrument Segmentation Challengecited by 166
  6. 2021Stereo Correspondence and Reconstruction of Endoscopic Data Challengecited by 101
  7. 2018Why rankings of biomedical image analysis competitions should be interpreted with carecited by 90
  8. 2018Automatic Instrument Segmentation in Robot-Assisted Surgery Using Deep Learningcited by 81
  9. 2020ISINet: An Instance-Based Approach for Surgical Instrument Segmentationcited by 67
  10. 2019Incorporating Temporal Prior from Motion Flow for Instrument Segmentation in Minimally Invasive Surgery Videocited by 64
  11. 2019Methods and open-source toolkit for analyzing and visualizing challenge resultscited by 60
  12. 2019BIAS: Transparent reporting of biomedical image analysis challengescited by 57
9 more
  1. 2020Heidelberg Colorectal Data Set for Surgical Data Science in the Sensor Operating Roomcited by 47
  2. 2018Comparative evaluation of instrument segmentation and tracking methods in minimally invasive surgerycited by 36
  3. 2019A deep learning framework for quality assessment and restoration in video endoscopycited by 24
  4. 2019U-NetPlus: A Modified Encoder-Decoder U-Net Architecture for Semantic and Instance Segmentation of Surgical Instrumentcited by 23
  5. 2020Real-Time Segmentation of Non-Rigid Surgical Tools based on Deep Learning and Trackingcited by 15
  6. 2020OR-UNet: an Optimized Robust Residual U-Net for Instrument Segmentation in Endoscopic Imagescited by 10
  7. 2019A Framework for Challenge Design: Insight and Deployment Challenges to Address Medical Image Analysis Problemscited by 2
  8. 2019MaskPlus: Improving Mask Generation for Instance Segmentationcited by 1
  9. 2020Polyp-artifact relationship analysis using graph inductive learned representationscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 1; 2025: 1.

5 papers.