Heidelberg Colorectal Data Set for Surgical Data Science in the Sensor Operating Room

Image-based tracking of medical instruments is an integral part of many surgical data science applications. Previous research has addressed the tasks of detecting, segmenting and tracking medical instruments based on laparoscopic video data. However, the methods proposed still tend to fail when applied to challenging images and do not generalize well to data they have not been trained on. This paper introduces the Heidelberg Colorectal (HeiCo) data set - the first publicly available data set enabling comprehensive benchmarking of medical instrument detection and segmentation algorithms with a specific emphasis on robustness and generalization capabilities of the methods. Our data set comprises 30 laparoscopic videos and corresponding sensor data from medical devices in the operating room for three different types of laparoscopic surgery. Annotations include surgical phase labels for all frames in the videos as well as instance-wise segmentation masks for surgical instruments in more than 10,000 individual frames. The data has successfully been used to organize international competitions in the scope of the Endoscopic Vision Challenges (EndoVis) 2017 and 2019.

Robust Medical Instrument Segmentation Challenge 2019

Intraoperative tracking of laparoscopic instruments is often a prerequisite for computer and robotic-assisted interventions. While numerous methods for detecting, segmenting and tracking of medical instruments based on endoscopic video images have been proposed in the literature, key limitations remain to be addressed: Firstly, robustness, that is, the reliable performance of state-of-the-art methods when run on challenging images (e.g. in the presence of blood, smoke or motion artifacts). Secondly, generalization; algorithms trained for a specific intervention in a specific hospital should generalize to other interventions or institutions. In an effort to promote solutions for these limitations, we organized the Robust Medical Instrument Segmentation (ROBUST-MIS) challenge as an international benchmarking competition with a specific focus on the robustness and generalization capabilities of algorithms. For the first time in the field of endoscopic image processing, our challenge included a task on binary segmentation and also addressed multi-instance detection and segmentation. The challenge was based on a surgical data set comprising 10,040 annotated images acquired from a total of 30 surgical procedures from three different types of surgery. The validation of the competing methods for the three tasks (binary segmentation, multi-instance detection and multi-instance segmentation) was performed in three different stages with an increasing domain gap between the training and the test data. The results confirm the initial hypothesis, namely that algorithm performance degrades with an increasing domain gap. While the average detection and segmentation quality of the best-performing algorithms is high, future research should concentrate on detection and segmentation of small, crossing, moving and transparent instrument(s) (parts).

Is the winner really the best? A critical analysis of common research practice in biomedical image analysis competitions

International challenges have become the standard for validation of biomedical image analysis methods. Given their scientific impact, it is surprising that a critical analysis of common practices related to the organization of challenges has not yet been performed. In this paper, we present a comprehensive analysis of biomedical image analysis challenges conducted up to now. We demonstrate the importance of challenges and show that the lack of quality control has critical consequences. First, reproducibility and interpretation of the results is often hampered as only a fraction of relevant information is typically provided. Second, the rank of an algorithm is generally not robust to a number of variables such as the test data used for validation, the ranking scheme applied and the observers that make the reference annotations. To overcome these problems, we recommend best practice guidelines and define open research questions to be addressed in the future.