{ "id": 245311, "title": "Can non-box region be considered \"negative for Pneumonia\" ?", "url": "/competitions/siim-covid19-detection/discussion/245311", "author_name": "", "post_date": "2021-06-10T14:47:52.778825400Z", "votes": 3, "comment_count": 6, "views": 0, "content": "

If i remove the annotated box region (opacities), will the remaining region (non-opacities?) be considered as \"negative for Pneumonia\"?

\n

i am thinking of synthesizing more training samples ….

", "messages": [ { "id": "1343979", "postDate": "06/10/2021 14:47:52", "content": "

If i remove the annotated box region (opacities), will the remaining region (non-opacities?) be considered as \"negative for Pneumonia\"?

\n

i am thinking of synthesizing more training samples ….

", "rawMarkdown": "If i remove the annotated box region (opacities), will the remaining region (non-opacities?) be considered as \"negative for Pneumonia\"?\n\ni am thinking of synthesizing more training samples ....", "votes": null }, { "id": "1343994", "postDate": "06/10/2021 14:53:55", "content": "

I think pneumonia has other radiological features except opacity, so considering other regions as negative for Pneumonia may be a bit tricky.

", "rawMarkdown": "I think **pneumonia** has other radiological features except **opacity**, so considering other regions as negative for Pneumonia may be a bit tricky.", "votes": null }, { "id": "1344023", "postDate": "06/10/2021 15:12:03", "content": "

thanks! ‎‎‎‎
\n‎

", "rawMarkdown": "thanks! ‎‎‎‎\n‎", "votes": null }, { "id": "1344157", "postDate": "06/10/2021 16:43:21", "content": "

Generally true, but be careful about the atypical cases. The annotator was asked not to box the non-pneumonia related conditions, such as nodules and masses and pleural effusion, but they can be labeled as \"atypical\" at study level.

", "rawMarkdown": "Generally true, but be careful about the atypical cases. The annotator was asked not to box the non-pneumonia related conditions, such as nodules and masses and pleural effusion, but they can be labeled as \"atypical\" at study level.", "votes": null }, { "id": "1344732", "postDate": "06/11/2021 05:22:22", "content": "

Actually, negative for pneumonia => no opacity boxes.
\nThe reverse one is not true:

", "rawMarkdown": "Actually, **negative for pneumonia** => **no opacity boxes**. \nThe reverse one is not true: ~~**no opacity boxes** => **negative for pneumonia**~~", "votes": null }, { "id": "1344921", "postDate": "06/11/2021 07:50:52", "content": "

I found there are some samples with non-opacities are labeled as None negative for Pneumonia .

", "rawMarkdown": "I found there are some samples with non-opacities are labeled as **None negative for Pneumonia** .", "votes": null }, { "id": "1348676", "postDate": "06/14/2021 07:21:54", "content": "

@awsaf49 are such images which have no BBX but they are labelled Postive for Pneumonia are confusing for models which have classification and detection in same model like many object detections?

", "rawMarkdown": "awsaf49 are such images which have no BBX but they are labelled Postive for Pneumonia are confusing for models which have classification and detection in same model like many object detections?", "votes": null } ], "comments": [ { "id": 1343994, "author_name": "awsaf49", "author_url": "", "post_date": "06/10/2021 14:53:55", "content": "

I think pneumonia has other radiological features except opacity, so considering other regions as negative for Pneumonia may be a bit tricky.

", "votes": null, "replies": [ { "id": 1344023, "author_name": "hengck23", "author_url": "", "post_date": "06/10/2021 15:12:03", "content": "

thanks! ‎‎‎‎
\n‎

", "votes": null, "replies": [] }, { "id": 1348676, "author_name": "jaideepvalani", "author_url": "", "post_date": "06/14/2021 07:21:54", "content": "

@awsaf49 are such images which have no BBX but they are labelled Postive for Pneumonia are confusing for models which have classification and detection in same model like many object detections?

", "votes": null, "replies": [] } ] }, { "id": 1344157, "author_name": "houndcl", "author_url": "", "post_date": "06/10/2021 16:43:21", "content": "

Generally true, but be careful about the atypical cases. The annotator was asked not to box the non-pneumonia related conditions, such as nodules and masses and pleural effusion, but they can be labeled as \"atypical\" at study level.

", "votes": null, "replies": [] }, { "id": 1344732, "author_name": "solosquad1999", "author_url": "", "post_date": "06/11/2021 05:22:22", "content": "

Actually, negative for pneumonia => no opacity boxes.
\nThe reverse one is not true:

", "votes": null, "replies": [] }, { "id": 1344921, "author_name": "southsakura", "author_url": "", "post_date": "06/11/2021 07:50:52", "content": "

I found there are some samples with non-opacities are labeled as None negative for Pneumonia .

", "votes": null, "replies": [] } ], "raw_markdown_by_id": { "1343979": "If i remove the annotated box region (opacities), will the remaining region (non-opacities?) be considered as \"negative for Pneumonia\"?\n\ni am thinking of synthesizing more training samples ....", "1343994": "I think **pneumonia** has other radiological features except **opacity**, so considering other regions as negative for Pneumonia may be a bit tricky.", "1344023": "thanks! ‎‎‎‎\n‎", "1344157": "Generally true, but be careful about the atypical cases. The annotator was asked not to box the non-pneumonia related conditions, such as nodules and masses and pleural effusion, but they can be labeled as \"atypical\" at study level.", "1344732": "Actually, **negative for pneumonia** => **no opacity boxes**. \nThe reverse one is not true: ~~**no opacity boxes** => **negative for pneumonia**~~", "1344921": "I found there are some samples with non-opacities are labeled as **None negative for Pneumonia** .", "1348676": "awsaf49 are such images which have no BBX but they are labelled Postive for Pneumonia are confusing for models which have classification and detection in same model like many object detections?" }, "source": "meta" }