Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Why is the Winner the Best?

  • M. Eisenmann
  • , A. Reinke
  • , V. Weru
  • , M. D. Tizabi
  • , F. Isensee
  • , T. J. Adler
  • , S. Ali
  • , V. Andrearczyk
  • , M. Aubreville
  • , U. Baid
  • , S. Bakas
  • , N. Balu
  • , S. Bano
  • , J. Bernal
  • , S. Bodenstedt
  • , A. Casella
  • , V. Cheplygina
  • , M. Daum
  • , M. De Bruijne
  • , A. Depeursinge
  • R. Dorent, J. Egger, D. G. Ellis, S. Engelhardt, M. Ganz, N. Ghatwary, G. Girard, P. Godau, A. Gupta, L. Hansen, K. Harada, M. Heinrich, N. Heller, A. Hering, A. Huaulmé, P. Jannin, A. E. Kavur, O. Kodym, M. Kozubek, J. Li, H. Li, J. Ma, C. Martín-Isla, B. Menze, A. Noble, V. Oreiller, N. Padoy, S. Pati, K. Payette, T. Rädsch, J. Rafael-Patiño, V. Singh Bawa, S. Speidel, C. H. Sudre, K. Van Wijnen, M. Wagner, D. Wei, A. Yamlahi, M. H. Yap, C. Yuan, M. Zenk, A. Zia, D. Zimmerer, D. Aydogan, B. Bhattarai, L. Bloch, R. Brüngel, J. Cho, C. Choi, Q. Dou, I. Ezhov, C. M. Friedrich, C. Fuller, R. R. Gaire, A. Galdran, A. García Faura, M. Grammatikopoulou, S. Hong, M. Jahanifar, I. Jang, A. Kadkhodamohammadi, I. Kang, F. Kofler, S. Kondo, H. Kuijf, M. Li, M. Luu, T. Martinčič, P. Morais, M. A. Naser, B. Oliveira, D. Owen, S. Pang, J. Park, S. Park, S. Płotka, E. Puybareau, N. Rajpoot, K. Ryu, N. Saeed, A. Shephard, P. Shi, D. Štepec, R. Subedi, G. Tochon, H. R. Torres, H. Urien, J. L. Vilaça, K. A. Wahid, H. Wang, J. Wang, L. Wang, X. Wang, B. Wiestler, M. Wodzinski, F. Xia, J. Xie, Z. Xiong, S. Yang, Y. Yang, Z. Zhao, K. Maier-Hein, P. F. Jäger, A. Kopp-Schneider, L. Maier-Hein
  • German Cancer Research Center
  • Heidelberg University 
  • University of Leeds
  • University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland
  • University of Lausanne
  • Technische Hochschule Ingolstadt
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • University of Washington
  • University College London
  • Autonomous University of Barcelona
  • Technische Universität Dresden
  • Italian Institute of Technology
  • Polytechnic University of Milan
  • IT University of Copenhagen
  • Erasmus University Rotterdam
  • University of Copenhagen
  • Brigham and Women’s Hospital
  • Kings College London
  • University of Duisburg-Essen
  • University of Nebraska Medical Center
  • Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport
  • Cibm Center for Biomedical Imaging
  • Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne
  • Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology Delhi
  • University of Lübeck
  • The University of Tokyo
  • University of Minnesota Twin Cities
  • Radboud University Nijmegen
  • Fraunhofer Institute for Digital Medicine
  • University of Rennes
  • Brno University of Technology
  • Masaryk University
  • University of Zurich
  • University of Toronto
  • University of Barcelona
  • University of Oxford
  • University of Strasbourg
  • IHU Strasbourg
  • Technical University of Munich
  • Oxford Brookes University
  • Boston College
  • Manchester Metropolitan University
  • Intuitive Surgical
  • University of Eastern Finland
  • Aalto University
  • University of Aberdeen
  • Dortmund University of Applied Sciences and Arts
  • Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong
  • University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
  • Nepal Applied Mathematics and Informatics Institute for Research (NAAMII)
  • Pompeu Fabra University
  • University of Adelaide
  • XLAB d.o.o.
  • Medtronic Limited
  • Cj Ai Center
  • University of Warwick
  • Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
  • Massachusetts General Hospital
  • Harvard University
  • Helmholtz Zentrum München - German Research Center for Environmental Health
  • Muroran Institute of Technology
  • Utrecht University
  • University of Science and Technology of China
  • 2Ai – Laboratório de Inteligência Artificial Aplicada
  • University of Minho
  • Sano Centre for Computational Medicine
  • University of Amsterdam
  • Amsterdam University Medical Center
  • EPITA - School of Engineering and Computer Science
  • Korea Institute of Science and Technology
  • Mohamed Bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence
  • Harbin Institute of Technology Shenzhen
  • University of Ljubljana
  • ISEP
  • Xiamen University
  • College of Computer Science
  • AGH University of Krakow
  • Argonne National Laboratory
  • The University of Chicago
  • Shaanxi Normal University
  • Tencent

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference proceedings published in a bookpeer-review

Abstract

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 multicenter 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 post-processing (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.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings - 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2023
PublisherIEEE Computer Society
Pages19955-19966
Number of pages12
ISBN (Electronic)9798350301298
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2023
Externally publishedYes
Event2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2023 - Vancouver, Canada
Duration: 18 Jun 202322 Jun 2023

Publication series

NameProceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
Volume2023-June
ISSN (Print)1063-6919

Conference

Conference2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2023
Country/TerritoryCanada
CityVancouver
Period18/06/2322/06/23

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Software
  • Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Keywords

  • cell microscopy
  • Medical and biological vision

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Why is the Winner the Best?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this