Manual Segmentation Errors in Medical Imaging. Proposing a Reliable Gold Standard

  • Fernando Yepes-CalderonEmail author
  • J. Gordon McComb
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1051)


Manual segmentation is ubiquitous in modern medical imaging. It is a tedious and time-consuming process that is also operator-dependent and due to its low reproducibility, presents to specialist a challenge to reach consensus when diagnosing from an image. In the diagnosis of several abnormalities, geometrical features such as distances, curvatures, volumes, areas, and shapes are used to derive verdicts. These features are only quantifiable if the measuring structures can be separated from other elements in the image. The process of manual segmentation provides the analysis with a response to the question of the limits, and those limits are not easy to identify. Despite all the mentioned drawbacks, manual segmentation is still used in medical imaging analysis or employed to validate automatic or semi-automatic methods. Intending to quantify the operator variability of the process, we have created a controlled environment and run segmentations on known volumes scanned with Magnetic Resonance. The strategy proposed here suggests a mechanism to establish gold standards for geometrical readings in medical imaging; thus measuring instruments can be analyzed and certified for the task.


Segmentation standards Medical image quantification Repeatable segmentations 


  1. 1.
    Bae, K.T., Giger, M.L., Chen, C.-T., Kahn Jr., C.E.: Automatic segmentation of liver structure in ct images. Med. Phys. 20, 71–78 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dyjack, D.T., Levine, S.P.: Development of an ISO 9000 compatible occupational health standard: defining the issues. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 56, 599–609 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Admiraal-Behloul, F., et al.: Fully automatic segmentation of white matter hyperintensities in MR images of the elderly. NeuroImage 28, 607–617 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fenster, A., Chiu, B.: Evaluation of segmentation algorithms for medical imaging. IEEE EMB, January 2006Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duca, D., Riva, G., Foppa, E., Toscano, P.G.: Wood pellet quality with respect to EN 14961–2 standard and certifications. Fuel 135, 9–14 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fukuda, Y., Terada, Y., Yoshioka, H., Yu, H.J., Chang, A.: Comparative study of intra-operator variability in manual and semi-automatic segmentation of knee cartilage. Abstr./Osteoarthr. Cartil. 24, 296–297 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jovanović, B., Filipović, J.: ISO 50001 standard-based energy management maturity model-proposal and validation in industry. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 2744–2755 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim, H., et al.: Quantitative evaluation of image segmentation incorporating medical consideration functions. Med. Phys. 42(6), 3013–3023 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moeskops, P., Viergever, M.A., Mendrik, A.M., de Vries, L.S., Benders, M.J.N.L., Išgum, I.: Automatic segmentation of MR brain images with a convolutional neural network. Fuel 9–14 (2014) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pohle, R., Toennies, K.D.: Segmentation of medical images using adaptive region growing. In: Proceedings of Medical Imaging, vol. 4322, July 2001Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rana, M., et al.: Development and evaluation of an automatic tumor segmentation tool: a comparison between automatic, semi-automatic and manual segmentation of mandibular odontogenic cysts and tumors. J. Cranio-Maxillo-Fac. Surg. 43, 355–359 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wei, W., Ramalho, O., Mandin, C.: Indoor air quality requirements in green building certifications. Build. Environ. 92, 10–19 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yan, P., Kassim, A.A.: Medical image segmentation using minimal path deformable models with implicit shape priors. In: IEEE EMB, October 2006Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yao, J., Warren, S.: Applying the ISO/IEEE 11073 standards to wearable home health monitoring systems. J. Clin. Monit. Comput. 19, 427–436 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Neurosurgery DivisionChildren’s Hospital Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Keck School of MedicineUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations