The feasibility of using citizens to segment anatomy from medical images: Accuracy and motivation

The development of automatic methods for segmenting anatomy from medical images is an important goal for many medical and healthcare research areas. Datasets that can be used to train and test computer algorithms, however, are often small due to the difficulties in obtaining experts to segment enough examples. Citizen science provides a potential solution to this problem but the feasibility of using the public to identify and segment anatomy in a medical image has not been investigated. Our study therefore aimed to explore the feasibility, in terms of performance and motivation, of using citizens for such purposes. Public involvement was woven into the study design and evaluation. Twenty-nine citizens were recruited and, after brief training, asked to segment the spine from a dataset of 150 magnetic resonance images. Participants segmented as many images as they could within three one-hour sessions. Their accuracy was evaluated by comparing them, as individuals and as a combined consensus, to the segmentations of three experts. Questionnaires and a focus group were used to determine the citizens’ motivation for taking part and their experience of the study. Citizen segmentation accuracy, in terms of agreement with the expert consensus segmentation, varied considerably between individual citizens. The citizen consensus, however, was close to the expert consensus, indicating that when pooled, citizens may be able to replace or supplement experts for generating large image datasets. Personal interest and a desire to help were the two most common reasons for taking part in the study.

[1]  David Atkinson,et al.  Automatic segmentation propagation of the aorta in real‐time phase contrast MRI using nonrigid registration , 2011, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[2]  V. Strezov,et al.  An Analysis of Citizen Science Based Research: Usage and Publication Patterns , 2015, PloS one.

[3]  G. Sharp,et al.  Vision 20/20: perspectives on automated image segmentation for radiotherapy. , 2014, Medical physics.

[4]  C. Mellish,et al.  The role of automated feedback in training and retaining biological recorders for citizen science , 2016, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[5]  B. van Ginneken,et al.  Computer-aided diagnosis: how to move from the laboratory to the clinic. , 2011, Radiology.

[6]  C. Lintott,et al.  Galaxy Zoo: Motivations of Citizen Scientists , 2008, 1303.6886.

[7]  Anne M. Land-Zandstra,et al.  Citizen science on a smartphone: Participants’ motivations and learning , 2016, Public understanding of science.

[8]  André Stumpf,et al.  An Empirical Study Into Annotator Agreement, Ground Truth Estimation, and Algorithm Evaluation , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[9]  J. Meakin,et al.  Computer-aided detection in musculoskeletal projection radiography: A systematic review. , 2018, Radiography.

[10]  Emma J. Harris,et al.  The Validation Index: A New Metric for Validation of Segmentation Algorithms Using Two or More Expert Outlines With Application to Radiotherapy Planning , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[11]  Hugo Winfield Hutt,et al.  Automatic segmentation of the lumbar spine from medical images , 2016 .

[12]  Alessandro Marro,et al.  Three-Dimensional Printing and Medical Imaging: A Review of the Methods and Applications. , 2016, Current problems in diagnostic radiology.

[13]  M A Deeley,et al.  Comparison of manual and automatic segmentation methods for brain structures in the presence of space-occupying lesions: a multi-expert study , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[14]  Candie C. Wilderman,et al.  Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. , 2009 .

[15]  Elena Marchiori,et al.  Location Sensitive Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Segmentation of White Matter Hyperintensities , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[16]  Eva J. Lewandowski,et al.  Influence of volunteer and project characteristics on data quality of biological surveys , 2015, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[17]  Novice Reviewers Retain High Sensitivity and Specificity of Posterior Segment Disease Identification with iWellnessExam™ , 2016, Journal of ophthalmology.

[18]  S. M. Masudur Rahman Al-Arif,et al.  Fully automatic cervical vertebrae segmentation framework for X-ray images , 2018, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed..

[19]  Christopher Kullenberg,et al.  What Is Citizen Science? – A Scientometric Meta-Analysis , 2016, PloS one.

[20]  B. Prainsack,et al.  Motivations of participants in the citizen science of microbiomics: data from the British Gut Project , 2017, Genetics in Medicine.