{rfName}
Th

Indexed in

License and use

Citations

Altmetrics

Analysis of institutional authors

López-Pérez, MiguelCorresponding Author
Share
Publications
>
Article

The CrowdGleason dataset: Learning the Gleason grade from crowds and experts☆

Publicated to:Computer Methods And Programs In Biomedicine. 257 108472- - 2024-12-01 257(), DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2024.108472

Authors: Lopez-Perez, Miguel; Morquecho, Alba; Schmidt, Arne; Perez-Bueno, Fernando; Martin-Castro, Aurelio; Mateos, Javier; Molina, Rafael

Affiliations

Basque Ctr Cognit Brain & Language, Donostia San Sebastian, Spain - Author
Univ Granada, Dept Comp Sci & Artificial Intelligence, Granada, Spain - Author
Univ Politecn Valencia, Inst Univ Invest Tecnol Ctr Humano, Valencia, Spain - Author
Virgen Nieves Univ Hosp, Dept Pathol, Granada 18014, Spain - Author

Abstract

Background: Currently, prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis relies on the human analysis of prostate biopsy Whole Slide Images (WSIs) using the Gleason score. Since this process is error-prone and time-consuming, recent advances in machine learning have promoted the use of automated systems to assist pathologists. Unfortunately, labeled datasets for training and validation are scarce due to the need for expert pathologists to provide ground-truth labels. Methods: This work introduces anew prostate histopathological dataset named CrowdGleason, which consists of 19,077 patches from 1045 WSIs with various Gleason grades. The dataset was annotated using a crowdsourcing protocol involving seven pathologists-in-training to distribute the labeling effort. To provide a baseline analysis, two crowdsourcing methods based on Gaussian Processes (GPs) were evaluated for Gleason grade prediction: SVGPCR, which learns a model from the CrowdGleason dataset, and SVGPMIX, which combines data from the public dataset SICAPv2 and the CrowdGleason dataset. The performance of these methods was compared with other crowdsourcing and expert label-based methods through comprehensive experiments. Results: The results demonstrate that our GP-based crowdsourcing approach outperforms other methods for aggregating crowdsourced labels (x = 0.7048 +/- 0.0207) for SVGPCR vs.(x = 0.6576 +/- 0.0086) for SVGP with majority voting). SVGPCR trained with crowdsourced labels performs better than GP trained with expert labels from SICAPv2 (x = 0.6583 +/- 0.0220) and outperforms most individual pathologists-in-training (mean x = 0.5432). Additionally, SVGPMIX trained with a combination of SICAPv2 and CrowdGleason achieves the highest performance on both datasets (x = 0.7814 +/- 0.0083 and x = 0.7276 +/- 0.0260). Conclusion: The experiments show that the CrowdGleason dataset can be successfully used for training and validating supervised and crowdsourcing methods. Furthermore, the crowdsourcing methods trained on this dataset obtain competitive results against those using expert labels. Interestingly, the combination of expert and non-expert labels opens the door to a future of massive labeling by incorporating both expert and non-expert pathologist annotators.

Keywords
ClassificationComputational pathologyCrowdsourcingDiagnosiGaussian processesGaussian-processesGleason gradeInterobserverMedical image analysiProstate cancerProstate-cancerReproducibility

Quality index

Bibliometric impact. Analysis of the contribution and dissemination channel

The work has been published in the journal Computer Methods And Programs In Biomedicine due to its progression and the good impact it has achieved in recent years, according to the agency WoS (JCR), it has become a reference in its field. In the year of publication of the work, 2024 there are still no calculated indicators, but in 2023, it was in position 30/123, thus managing to position itself as a Q1 (Primer Cuartil), in the category Engineering, Biomedical.

Impact and social visibility

From the perspective of influence or social adoption, and based on metrics associated with mentions and interactions provided by agencies specializing in calculating the so-called "Alternative or Social Metrics," we can highlight as of 2025-05-24:

  • The use of this contribution in bookmarks, code forks, additions to favorite lists for recurrent reading, as well as general views, indicates that someone is using the publication as a basis for their current work. This may be a notable indicator of future more formal and academic citations. This claim is supported by the result of the "Capture" indicator, which yields a total of: 5 (PlumX).
Leadership analysis of institutional authors

There is a significant leadership presence as some of the institution’s authors appear as the first or last signer, detailed as follows: First Author (López Pérez, Miguel) .

the author responsible for correspondence tasks has been López Pérez, Miguel.